Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines

Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings
FEMA-445 / August 2006

FEMA

nehrp

FEMA 445 / August 2006

Next-Generation PerformanceBased Seismic Design Guidelines
Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings

Prepared by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Redwood City, California 94065 www.ATCouncil.org

Prepared for FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Michael Mahoney, Project Officer Washington, D.C.

product. Inc. or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Applied Technology Council (ATC). neither ATC.. findings. nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy. or process included in this publication. completeness. Additionally. conclusions. or usefulness of any information. nor any of their employees makes any warranty. FEMA.Notice Any opinions. expressed or implied. . DHS. Cover photograph is provided courtesy of Forell/Elsesser Engineers. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use. San Francisco.

and FEMA had concerns regarding the availability of funding at the levels necessary to achieve the ambitious goals outlined in the plan. which would allow engineers and designers to better work with stakeholders in identifying the probable seismic performance of new and existing buildings. This FEMA 445 Program Plan builds on earlier plans developed for FEMA by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. or hurricane. 1996) emphasized the research that would be required. —Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA 445 Foreword iii . and do not necessarily represent the views of FEMA. blast. Execution of the plan. however. FEMA 349 (EERI. and FEMA 283 (EERC. To achieve this goal.Foreword One of the primary goals of the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is prevention or mitigation of this country's losses from hazards that affect the built environment. is contingent upon funding. This Program Plan includes the projected costs for both the original and modified-scope programs. in all likelihood. and the Earthquake Engineering Research Center. The information and opinions contained in this Program Plan are solely those of the project participants. still suffer significant structural and nonstructural damage in a severe event. To do this. FEMA and ATC developed a reduced scope and extended schedule under which the program could proceed with less than full funding. The result of their hard work and dedication will play an important role in helping the nation move towards performance-based seismic design and reducing losses suffered by the citizenry in future earthquakes. FEMA wishes to express its sincere gratitude to all who were involved in this project and in the development of this Program Plan. It does an excellent job of capturing the recommendations from that workshop and describing the necessary requirements. such as an earthquake. 2000) provided a description of the key activities necessary for developing performance-based seismic design criteria. FEMA contracted with the Applied Technology Council (ATC) to develop next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines. and (2) more effectively meet the performance targets of current building codes by providing verifiable alternatives to current prescriptive code requirements for new buildings. As a result. These procedures could be voluntarily used to: (1) assess and improve the performance of buildings designed to a building code “life safety” level. This Program Plan is based on the results of a workshop soliciting the input of the nation's leading seismic professionals in preparing a long-term plan to develop new performance-based seismic design procedures. we as a nation must determine what level of performance is expected from our buildings during a severe event. which would. As a basis for this plan. Publication of this Program Plan does not obligate FEMA or any other federal agency to any portion of the plan contained herein.

.

University of California at Berkeley in 1996. and terrorist attack. flood.Preface Advancement of present-generation performance-based seismic design procedures is widely recognized in the earthquake engineering community as an essential next step in the nation’s drive to develop resilient. ATC Executive Director FEMA 445 Preface v . and developmental work completed to date. This FEMA 445 Program Plan is a refinement and extension of two earlier FEMA plans: FEMA 283 Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings – an Action Plan. performance-based design of new buildings. which was prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute in 2000. and performance-based upgrades of existing buildings will all be significantly advanced under this Program Plan. which was prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Center. has been performed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) under the ATC-58 project entitled Development of NextGeneration Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings. The preparation of this Program Plan. The technological framework developed under this program is transferable and can be adapted for use in performance-based design for other extreme hazards including fire. loss-resistant communities. task-oriented program that will develop next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines for structural and nonstructural components in new and existing buildings. This Program Plan offers a step-by-step. The state of practice for performance-based assessment. and FEMA 349 Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design. wind. Christopher Rojahn. The decision-making tools and guidelines developed under this Program Plan will greatly improve our ability to develop cost-effective and efficient earthquake loss reduction programs nationwide.

.

Caldwell. and James W. John Gillengerten. Input to this Program Plan was provided by a broad range of earthquake engineering specialists during a FEMA-sponsored workshop conducted by ATC in February 2003. Moehle. and patience provided by the FEMA Project Officer. The Project Management Committee consisted of Christopher Rojahn (Chair). Philip J. Maryann T. Allin Cornell. Gregory Deierlein. Phipps (ATC Board Representative). Hamburger. Substantial contributions were also made by the Product Development Team Leaders and their teams. and Keith Porter. and the FEMA Technical Monitor. Robert D. The Risk Management Products Team consisted of Craig D. Heintz served as Report Editor. Andre Filiatrault. Abrams. Hamburger (Co-Chair). Meacham (Associate Team Leader). Ronald O. Borcherdt. Roger D. FEMA 445 Acknowledgments vii . Kennedy. and Charles Kircher. are also gratefully acknowledged. Mohammed Ettouney. John Hooper. The affiliations of these individuals are provided in the list of project participants at the end of this report. David Bonowitz. Eduardo Miranda. May. Michel Bruneau. and Jon Traw. Project Technical Director. Randall Berdine. Petak. The Nonstructural Performance Products Team consisted of Robert E. and Andrew T. Andre Filiatrault. Daniel P. Holmes (Chair). Bachman (Team Leader). Brian J. with review and input by the Project Management Committee. Sealy. Gary McGavin. The sage advice provided by these individuals substantially influenced the direction and scope of this Program Plan. Ronald O. and the Project Steering Committee. Participants included researchers and practicing structural engineers as well policy makers and regulators. Jack P. C. Comartin (Team Leader). Peter J. Terry Dooley. Project Steering Committee members consisted of William T. Jon A. Michael Mahoney. Mork produced the camera-ready document. Merovich. Jimmy Brothers. insight.Acknowledgments This FEMA-445 Program Plan was prepared by the Applied Technology Council under FEMA contract EMW-2001-CO-0378. Beck. Deborah B. Randy Schreitmueller. William J. Hanson. Robert P. and Peter N. was the principal architect of the Program Plan and is the principal author of this report. The vision. The Structural Products Development Team consisted of Andrew Whittaker (Team Leader).

.

identifies improvements needed in current seismic design practice. considering uncertainties inherent in the quantification of potential hazard and uncertainties in assessment of the actual building response. task-oriented program that will develop next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines for structural and nonstructural components in new and existing buildings. while the performance of others could be worse. As a result. offers a step-by-step. specify required minimum levels of strength and stiffness. University of California at Berkeley in 1996. This plan is a refinement and extension of two earlier FEMA plans: FEMA 283 Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings – an Action Plan. which was prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute in 2000. Although these prescriptive criteria are intended to result in buildings capable of providing certain levels of performance. This report. FEMA 445 Executive Summary ix . is currently engaged in a project to advance the state of practice in performance-based seismic design. Performance-based Design Performance-based seismic design explicitly evaluates how a building is likely to perform. introduces performance-based seismic design concepts. and economic loss that may occur as a result of future earthquakes. and outlines the tasks and projected costs for a two-phase program to develop next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines. This Program Plan offers background on current code design procedures. The preparation of this Program Plan. which was prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Center. the actual performance of individual building designs is not assessed as part of the traditional code design process.Executive Summary The Applied Technology Council (ATC). and developmental work completed to date. has been performed under the ATC-58 project entitled Development of Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings. occupancy interruption. identify approved structural and nonstructural systems. given the potential hazard it is likely to experience. Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design Building codes establish minimum requirements for safety through the specification of prescriptive criteria that regulate acceptable materials of construction. FEMA 445 Program Plan. under the sponsorship of the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). the performance capability of buildings designed to these prescriptive criteria can be better than the minimum standards anticipated by the code. and FEMA 349 Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design. It permits design of new buildings or upgrade of existing buildings with a realistic understanding of the risk of casualties. and control the details of how a building is to be put together.

Create procedures for estimating probable repair costs. performance-based design provides a systematic methodology for assessing the performance capability of a building. limitations in present-generation procedures are being identified by researchers and practitioners. It provides a framework for determining what level of safety and what level of property protection.It also establishes a vocabulary that facilitates meaningful discussion between stakeholders and design professionals on the development and selection of design options. and time of occupancy interruption) that better relate to the decision-making needs of stakeholders. Immediate Occupancy. and the need for alternative ways of communicating performance to stakeholders that is more meaningful and useful for decision-making purposes. the inability to reliably and economically apply performance-based procedures to the design of new buildings.g. They also introduced the concept of performance related to damage of both structural and nonstructural components. questions regarding the level of conservatism present in acceptance criteria. insurers. regulators and other decision makers based upon the specific needs of a project. limitations in our ability to accurately predict response. Life Safety. deliver standard performance at a reduced cost. and Operational Performance. In contrast to prescriptive design approaches. Nextgeneration performance-based design procedures are needed to: • Revise the discrete performance levels defined in first-generation procedures to create new performance measures (e. These include questions regarding the accuracy of analytical procedures in predicting actual building response. Performance Objectives were developed by linking one of these performance levels to a specific level of earthquake hazard. and that communicate these losses in a way that is more meaningful to stakeholders. Although intended for existing buildings. casualties. Collapse Prevention. and uncertainty in the level of earthquake hazard. The Need for Next-Generation Procedures As the state of knowledge and experience base advances. • • Framework for Next-Generation Procedures The next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures developed under this Program Plan will express performance directly in terms of quantified risks that a building owner or decision maker will x Executive Summary FEMA 445 . and time of occupancy interruption. It can be used to verify the equivalent performance of alternatives. repair costs. First-generation procedures introduced the concept of performance in terms of discretely defined performance levels with names intended to connote the expected level of damage: Collapse. at what cost. for both new and existing buildings. these procedures are being extrapolated for use in the performance-based design of new buildings. casualties. system or component. and adequately communicates to stakeholders. lenders. are acceptable to building owners. tenants. or confirm higher performance needed for critical facilities. Develop a framework for performance assessment that properly accounts for.

the total projected project costs of Phase 1 and 2 of this Program Plan are estimated to be approximately $21 million in 2004 dollars. consisting of the Structural Performance Products Team. In this phase. Collectively. and Phase 2 has a projected cost of approximately $10 million. Projected costs for the modified-scope program are approximately 50% of those for the original program. and to assist stakeholders in taking advantage of the benefits of performance-based design. or inflation. Structural Performance Products. • Work in each phase is organized around six broad categories of work: Planning and Management Program. a methodology will be developed for assessing the probable seismic performance of individual buildings in future earthquakes. internal government costs.be able to understand. and the work of Phase 1 will be substantially complete before Phase 2 begins. Phase 2 is planned to begin upon completion of Phase 1. the Nonstructural Performance Products Team. Risk Management Products. Projected Costs and Schedule As originally planned. technical oversight. Since available funding was not adequate to support the full Program Plan. FEMA 445 Executive Summary xi . Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines. At this funding level. Stakeholders prefer to define these risks in terms of the potential for casualties. repair costs. each phase will last approximately five years. Guidelines Products. and occupancy interruption. seismic design procedures and guidelines will be developed to assist engineers in designing buildings to meet desired performance goals. and Phase 1 has been underway for four years. and control of the work performed by the three Product Development Teams. Program Plan Work under this Program Plan is divided into two phases: • Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings. and do not include escalation due to changes in the value of money. Project Technical Committee. Each phase is planned to be accomplished in approximately five to seven years. and Project Steering Committee. labor rates. Stakeholder guidance will be developed to assist decision makers in selecting appropriate levels of risk as the basis of design and upgrade projects. Estimates of personnel and other costs were developed using prevailing labor costs common to projects of this type at the time this plan was prepared. Phase 1 has a projected cost of approximately $11 million. and Stakeholders Guide Products. these committees provide management. In this phase. Engineering guidelines will be prepared to assist design professionals in developing building designs that are reliable and capable of meeting the selected risk criteria. Work in each technical area will be performed by one of three Product Development Teams. Planning and Management Program tasks will be carried out within a project management structure consisting of three committees: Project Management Committee. Nonstructural Performance Products. and the Risk Management Products Team. a reduced scope and extended schedule was developed under which the program could proceed with less than full funding.

.

.. ix List of Figures .........3 Performance-Based Seismic Design ...........1......................................................................................................................................23 3.............1 1...7 1........................5 1...............................1 General..................................19 2............8 Program Plan: Goals............................5 Performance-Based Seismic Design Process .......7 1......................... Background...........1 1..................22 Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings .......19 2......................................................................................................5.11 2..............3 1.................................................................................... xix 1.......................11 2........................................1 Step 1: Select Performance Objectives ..............................................1 1.................. vii Executive Summary .. 3.............12 2..........6 Present Second-Generation Performance-Based Procedures...............................................................................24 Contents xiii 2......1........................14 2....6 1...................2 Step 2: Develop Preliminary Building Design....23 3......................................................3 Step 3: Assess Performance ......................8 Framework for Next-Generation Performance-Based Procedures and Relationship to HAZUS .... xvii List of Tables .......................4 Advantages of Performance-Based Seismic Design ..... and the Performance-Based Design Process ........................23 3........... Organization.5...............1 Phase 1 Objectives ................................................17 2...........................17 2..................v Acknowledgements...............7 The Need for Next-Generation Performance-Based Procedures.......................................................................................................5 First-Generation Performance-Based Procedures ......................1 Program Goals ....5.................................................................3 Preparatory Work from 2001 to Date .2 Research Needed From Other Programs..2 Current Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design.................5.......................................... FEMA 445 ............................4 Program Organization......................................11 2...................................................................... iii Preface.................21 2....Contents Foreword .......6 Applicability of Performance-Based Design to Other Structural Hazards.............................................................................4 Step 4: Revise Design ..............1 Expandable Framework ..........................2 Program Background ................... Introduction......

1 Project Management Committee ..1....3 3..4 Identify Input Engineering Demand Parameters (NPP-4) ...........4................1.... 23 3.. 26 3....................... 35 4.....3 Phase 1 Risk Management Products Tasks ......... 44 4.......... 35 4..5 Identify Structural Damage Measures (SPP-5) ..................2....................1 Develop Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines (RMP-1) ...................... 38 4.... 44 4..............3 Identify Nonstructural Performance Measures (NPP-3) ..1............. 48 4.1.................4..........1............... 29 3....... 40 4.................4.... 36 4...........1 Phase 1 Structural Performance Products Tasks . 49 4.2...2. 27 Summary of Phase 1 Technical Tasks............. Phase 1 Organization...........2............2.1.2......6 Structural Input to Model Building Studies (SPP-6) ..8 Develop Procedures for Computing Nonstructural Damage (NPP-8) .......4 Prepare Analysis Guidelines (SPP-4). 51 4.... 51 4............... 49 4....1.............. 47 4.7 Simplify Nonstructural Engineering Demand Parameters (NPP-7) ..... 28 3........2 Develop Catalog of Nonstructural Components and Systems (NPP-2) ....2 Identify Structural Engineering Demand Parameters (SPP-2) .....2......... 49 4...2 3......3 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions (RMP-3). 43 4....... 27 3.............10 Nonstructural Input to Model Building Studies (NPP-10).3.......2...............2. 42 4............... 28 3.....3....3......................................1 Nonstructural Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines (NPP-1) .................................5 4...................1....................5 Develop Performance Database (NPP-5) ..... 25 Phase 1 Project Management ......... 31 Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings—Technical Tasks .3 Project Steering Committee ........7 Develop Procedures for Input to Nonstructural Evaluation (SPP-7).......3................. 37 4.................... 45 4..3 Risk Management Products Tasks ............. 39 4......................4 3...................................2 Phase 1 Nonstructural Performance Products Tasks ...........9 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions (NPP-9)..... 46 4.2 Project Technical Committee .....1 Structural Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines (SPP-1) ...............................1 Structural Performance Products Tasks .........3..........3 Identify Intensity Measures (SPP-3) ...........3....... 52 xiv Contents FEMA 445 ... 30 Phase 1 Projected Program Costs and Schedule . 41 4.................................6 Develop Nonstructural Performance Evaluation Protocols (NPP-6) ...............2 Nonstructural Performance Products Tasks ........................2............ 47 4.....3......2 Develop Structural Loss Functions (RMP-2)......8 Develop Structural Loss Functions (SPP-8)... 43 4... 46 4...........................

....................2.....................2 Identify Effect of Structural Parameters (SPP-10) ...................1 Phase 2 Structural Performance Products Tasks..........................3................71 6..............................3 Identify Preferred Decision-Making Models (RMP-12) ....3..5 4..........7 4...........3..4 Develop Simplified Decision Tools (RMP-13) .........................69 6.3...........70 6...........57 Develop Standard Performance Level Characterizations (RMP-9) ....59 Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines....2 Phase 2 Nonstructural Products Tasks..............1.....................2 Identify Key Performance Parameters (RMP-11) ..1 Identify Structural Contribution to Performance (SPP-9) .............. Develop Model for Aggregating Losses (RMP-4) ...................76 6.................63 5......1 Structural Performance Products Tasks .76 6........79 6..53 Formulate Conceptual Aggregation Procedures (RMP-5) .............74 6........63 5...............3................3 Summary of Phase 2 Product Tasks....................................4 Identify Preferred Strategies (NPP-14)..........71 6.....4 Phase 2 Project Management ......65 5..............61 5........2............70 6.......................2 Nonstructural Performance Products Tasks.................... FEMA 445 .........................62 5.80 Contents xv 6....1.......73 6...8 4..........................61 5...........................4 Identify Preferred Structural Upgrade Strategies (SPP-12) ..........................71 6...........................72 6..........3.2 Identify Effectiveness of Current Practice (NPP-12) .1 Identify Nonstructural Performance Contributions (NPP-11) .....3 Identify Preferred Structural Strategies for New Buildings (SPP-11) ..2................................62 5.........................3 Risk Management Products Tasks ...........................2..........1.....................9 5........3...........56 Identify Stakeholder Needs (RMP-8) ................3.55 Procedure for Aggregating Local Effects to Global (RMP-6) ............3..3..............77 6..............56 Develop Loss Integration Procedures (RMP-7).......3 Identify Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies (NPP-13) .......80 6.5 Phase 2 Projected Program Costs and Schedule ............5 Provide Input to Design Guidelines (SPP-13) ....3......1 Phase 2 Objectives ..........2..3...........1....2 Phase 2 Description of Work ............................................3.............75 6...4...........3 Phase 2 Risk Management Products Tasks.........75 6...65 Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks .................5 Provide Input to Design Guidelines (NPP-15)....................1 Identify Key Performance Concerns (RMP-10)..............6 4........................69 6............4 4................64 5.............1...............................................

........ 101 A.... 91 A.8 Evaluation of Structural and Nonstructural Loss Functions ..... 105 Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment Using Closed Form Solutions..3 Characterization of Ground Shaking Hazard .................3..5 Formation of Nonstructural Response Functions....................... 123 Project Participants......................................................................6 6..7 6...... 102 A............. 81 Evaluate Performance Capability of Typical Existing Buildings (RMP-15) ............. 83 Provide Input to Design Guidelines (RMP-17)..........4 Structural Analysis and Structural Response Functions...........................................7 Development of Nonstructural Fragilities................. 85 A.......................1 Performance-Based Design Process.....3........................... 95 A........... 96 A.............................. 88 A................2 Performance Assessment Process .............9 Predicting Loss as a Function of Damage ....... 87 A............................................3..8 Evaluate Performance Capability of Buildings Conforming to Current Codes (RMP-14) ..............6 Evaluation of Structural Fragilities ......................................... 85 A.. 102 Appendix B: Appendix C: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment Using Numerical Integration Techniques.................. 119 References ......................5 6................. 129 xvi Contents FEMA 445 ............................. 83 Appendix A: Seismic Performance Assessment ........................... 82 Develop Stakeholder Guides (RMP-16) ..............................................3........6..........

.............................................66 Phase 2: Schedule for structural performance products tasks ...........17 Project management structure................36 Phase 1: Schedule for nonstructural performance products tasks........................................................................................4 Performance-based design process as it relates to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Program Plan ............26 Summary of tasks and schedule for Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings ..68 Phase 2: Nonstructural Performance Products task schedule ................................44 Phase 1: Schedule for risk management product tasks .............86 Performance assessment process ....................................... expressed as interstory drift ratio for a particular structure and ground shaking intensity ......................................................75 Performance-based design flow diagram...................................73 Phase 2: Schedule for Risk Management Products tasks...........................................92 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4 Figure 5-1 Figure 6-1 Figure 6-2 Figure 6-3 Figure A-1 Figure A-2 Figure A-3 Figure A-4 Figure A-5 FEMA 445 List of Figures xvii .....89 Probability distribution for structural response................................................54 Summary of tasks and schedule for Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines ............32 Phase 1: Schedule for structural performance products tasks............................................................................89 Scenario-based hazard function for site using Cartesian coordinates ................................List of Figures Figure 1-1 Figure 2-1 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Performance-based design flow diagram..........51 Loss aggregation process ..............................................................82 Scenario-based hazard function for hypothetical building site and earthquake scenario ...................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................. conditioned on the 10%/50 year scenario event........... 108 Cumulative probability distribution for interstory drift response...5 second .......... given collapse............................................................................................... 110 Fragilities for local damage to steel moment frame connection assemblies ....................... 111 Probability of Experiencing Various Repair Costs as Function of Connection Assembly Damage State............................................................ 102 Hypothetical loss curve for repair cost of damaged beam-column connections... 121 Figure A-7 Figure A-8 Figure A-9 Figure A-10 Figure A-11 Figure A-12 Figure A-13 Figure A-14 Figure B-1 Figure B-2 Figure B-3 Figure B-4 Figure B-5 Figure B-6 Figure C-1 Figure C-2 Figure C-3 xviii List of Figures FEMA 445 .... 111 Fragilities for global damage to steel moment frame building .. 121 Structural response curve for hypothetical building ............................................................................. 95 Illustrative nonstructural component response acceleration hazard curve ......... 100 Example fragility function for building-wide structural behavior............................................................................ 103 Hypothetical loss curve for fatalities...... 120 Global fragility for hypothetical structure.. 104 Hazard Curve with intensity at 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years indicated ................................... 107 Response curve for hypothetical structure ..................... 100 Hypothetical fragility curve for exterior cladding.................... 115 Median Hazard Curve for Site .......................... 96 Example fragility function for beam-column connection behavior .................... 93 Hypothetical structural response function for building......................Figure A-6 Cumulative probability distribution for structural response expressed as interstory drift ratio for a particular structure and ground shaking intensity .................................................................. 93 Illustrative nonstructural component demand function for floor response acceleration at 0................

..................................... Given the 10% ........112 Calculation of Probability of Each Global Damage State..................................114 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 Table 4-1 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table B-1 Table B-2 Table B-3 Table B-4 Table B-5 FEMA 445 List of Tables xix ...........68 Peak Ground Acceleration for 10%/50 Year Event..................36 Original Projected Program Costs by Product Development Area....................34 Reduced-Scope Projected Program Costs by Task and Year ($1...........................................000) .......107 Central Value of PGA for Scenario Event within Confidence Bands ...109 Calculation of Probability of Each Local Damage State ...........................67 Original Phase 2 Projected Program Costs by Task and Year ($1......000) ..................................................67 Reduced-Scope Projected Program Costs by Product Development Area..........................50 Year Event .000).......................................109 Distribution of Interstory Drift for the 10%/50 – Year Event ........................................................................ Phase 2: Development of Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines......................................................33 Original Projected Program Costs by Task and Year ($1...................................................33 Reduced-Scope Projected Costs by Product Development Area. Phase 1..............................000).......................List of Tables Table 3-1 Original Projected Costs by Product Development Area........................... Phase 1 .. Phase 1: Development of Performance Assessment Guidelines ............. at Various Confidence Levels. Phase 2: Development of Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines....................................68 Reduced-Scope Phase 2 Projected Program Costs by Task and Year ($1.. Phase 1: Development of Performance Assessment Guidelines ............34 Phase 1: Schedule for Structural Performance Product Tasks........

....................... Given 10%/50-Year Event ................................ 115 Calculation of Probable Repair Costs for Global Damage ............................................. Given that a Connection Damage State is Experienced.................................... 117 Calculation of Expected Repair Cost........................ 122 xx List of Tables FEMA 445 .........Table B-6 Table B-7 Table B-8 Table C-1 Calculation of Probable Repair Cost.................. 118 Epistemic and Aleatory Uncertainty for Example Building......................................................

2006). 1. It sets forth objectives. building codes are intended to establish minimum requirements for providing safety to life and property from fire and other hazards (ICC. which will develop recommended performance objectives and guidelines for assisting engineers and stakeholders in implementing the performance-based design process. Chapter 1 offers background on current code design procedures. Development of Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings. performance-based seismic design. and a schedule to be used as a basis for the execution of a project that builds on existing concepts for performance-based seismic design. Appendix A describes the technical details of the framework for nextgeneration seismic performance assessment. recommended budgets. Appendices B and C offer alternative numerical examples for implementing these procedures. Chapters 5 and 6 present the work plan for implementing Phase 2. FEMA 445 Program Plan. which will develop guidelines for improved procedures to assess the probable seismic performance of buildings. has been prepared to guide the development of next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines applicable to new and existing buildings. and introduces terms discussed in this Program Plan that may be less familiar to earthquake professionals who are not structural reliability or seismic risk specialists. and improvements needed in current seismic design practice. Chapter 2 discusses project goals and organization.2 Current Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design Design and construction in the United States is generally regulated at the state or local level using codes based on national model building codes and standards.1 General This report.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Work under this plan is being performed for the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) under the ATC58 project. FEMA 445 1: Introduction 1 . tasks. Chapters 3 and 4 present the basic work plan for implementing Phase 1. When adopted and enforced by local authorities. and formulates a framework for a nextgeneration methodology.

history. and anticipated degrees of damage are not a normal consideration for owners and most design professionals. allowable area and height. 2 1: Introduction FEMA 445 .). while the performance of others could be worse. The performance of some buildings designed to these prescriptive criteria can be better than the minimum standards anticipated by the code. Property and insured losses as a result of the Northridge Earthquake. Earthquakes in the early part of the 20th century (e. rain loads. identify approved structural and nonstructural systems. may not be specifically known. recognized as the most costly earthquake in U. live loads. Although the prescriptive criteria of model building codes are intended to result in buildings capable of providing certain levels of performance. dead loads. the actual performance capability of individual building designs is not assessed as part of the traditional code design process.This goal is accomplished through the specification of prescriptive criteria that regulate acceptable materials of construction. the performance capability of buildings designed to prescriptive criteria can be variable and. Experience in earthquakes at the end of the 20th century (e. etc. The evolution of seismic design provisions in model building codes can be tracked against the occurrence of damaging earthquakes. and specifications related to structural design (e. The development of seismic design criteria is an ongoing process of improvement.g. the 1925 Santa Barbara and 1933 Long Beach earthquakes) led to the development of regulations to provide for minimum levels of lateral strength. Building owners and occupants generally believe that adherence to building codes provides for a safe and habitable environment. earthquake loads. in addition to strength.g. for a given building. As a result. Prescriptive requirements are based on broad classifications of buildings and occupancies. the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe Earthquakes) has forced recognition that damage. and are typically stated in terms of fixed values such as fire resistance ratings. snow loads. sometimes severe. wind loads. both in the United States and abroad. In the latter part of the 20th century earthquakes such as the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake led to the realization that. and control the details of how a building is to be put together. can occur in buildings designed in accordance with the code..S.g. buildings needed to have the ability to deform without catastrophic failure (a characteristic known as ductility). led to an awareness that the level of structural and nonstructural damage that could occur in code-compliant buildings may not be consistent with public notions of acceptable performance. specify required minimum levels of strength and stiffness.

Changes in the state of knowledge and the evolution of seismic design criteria have also led to changes in engineering practice and research. With an emphasis on providing stakeholders the information needed to make rational business or safety-related decisions, practice has moved toward predictive methods for assessing potential seismic performance. At the same time researchers have been working on the development of new analytical tools and test data needed to improve assessment techniques. Recognition that code-based strength and ductility requirements applicable for the design of new buildings are not suitable for the evaluation and upgrade of existing buildings has led to the development of performance-based engineering methods for seismic design. 1.3 Performance-Based Seismic Design

The performance-based seismic design process explicitly evaluates how a building is likely to perform, given the potential hazard it is likely to experience, considering uncertainties inherent in the quantification of potential hazard and uncertainties in assessment of the actual building response. In performance-based design, identifying and assessing the performance capability of a building is an integral part of the design process, and guides the many design decisions that must be made. Figure 1-1 shows a flowchart that presents the key steps in the performance-based design process. It is an iterative process that begins with the selection of performance objectives, followed by the development of a preliminary design, an assessment as to whether or not the design meets the performance objectives, and finally redesign and reassessment, if required, until the desired performance level is achieved. Performance-based design begins with the selection of design criteria stated in the form of one or more performance objectives. Each performance objective is a statement of the acceptable risk of incurring specific levels of damage, and the consequential losses that occur as a result of this damage, at a specified level of seismic hazard. Losses can be associated with structural damage, nonstructural damage, or both. They can be expressed in the form of casualties, direct economic costs, and downtime (time out of service), resulting from damage. Methods for estimating losses and communicating these losses to stakeholders are at the heart of the evolution of performance-based design, and are discussed in more detail later in this Program Plan.

FEMA 445

1: Introduction

3

Figure 1-1

Performance-based design flow diagram

Generally, a team of decision makers, including the building owner, design professionals, and building officials, will participate in the selection of performance objectives for a building. This team may consider the needs and desires of a wider group of stakeholders including prospective tenants, lenders, insurers and others who have impact on the value or use of a building, but may not directly participate in the design process. Stakeholders must evaluate the risk of a hazard event occurring, and must obtain consensus on the acceptable level of performance. The basic questions that should be asked are:

• • •

What events are anticipated? What level of loss/damage/casualties is acceptable? How often might this happen?

While specific performance objectives can vary for each project, the notion of acceptable performance follows a trend generally corresponding to:

• •
4

Little or no damage for small, frequently occurring events Moderate damage for medium-size, less frequent events

1: Introduction

FEMA 445

Significant damage for very large, very rare events

Once the performance objectives are set, a series of simulations (analyses of building response to loading) are performed to estimate the probable performance of the building under various design scenario events. In the case of extreme loading, as would be imparted by a severe earthquake, simulations may be performed using nonlinear analysis techniques. If the simulated performance meets or exceeds the performance objectives, the design is complete. If not, the design is revised in an iterative process until the performance objectives are met. In some cases it may not be possible to meet the stated objective at reasonable cost, in which case, some relaxation of the original objectives may be appropriate. 1.4 Advantages of Performance-Based Seismic Design

In contrast to prescriptive design approaches, performance-based design provides a systematic methodology for assessing the performance capability of a building, system or component. It can be used to verify the equivalent performance of alternatives, deliver standard performance at a reduced cost, or confirm higher performance needed for critical facilities. It also establishes a vocabulary that facilitates meaningful discussion between stakeholders and design professionals on the development and selection of design options. It provides a framework for determining what level of safety and what level of property protection, at what cost, are acceptable to stakeholders based upon the specific needs of a project. Performance-based seismic design can be used to: • • • • Design individual buildings with a higher level of confidence that the performance intended by present building codes will be achieved. Design individual buildings that are capable of meeting the performance intended by present building codes, but with lower construction costs. Design individual buildings to achieve higher performance (and lower potential losses) than intended by present building codes. Design individual buildings that fall outside of code-prescribed limits with regard to configuration, materials, and systems to meet the performance intended by present building codes. Assess the potential seismic performance of existing structures and estimate potential losses in the event of a seismic event. Assess the potential performance of current prescriptive code requirements for new buildings, and serve as the basis for improvements

• •

FEMA 445

1: Introduction

5

1997a). and its companion document the FEMA 274 NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC. and provided a comprehensive set of guidelines on 6 1: Introduction FEMA 445 . as the capstone project in the FEMA program to reduce the seismic hazards of existing buildings. the technology used to implement performance-based seismic design is transferable.to code-based seismic design criteria so that future buildings can perform more consistently and reliably. and varying levels of hazard. Collapse Prevention. Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings (SEAOC. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC. These first-generation procedures introduced the concept of performance in terms of discretely defined performance levels with names intended to connote the expected level of damage: Collapse. wind. 1995). Performance-based seismic design offers society the potential to be both more efficient and effective in the investment of financial resources to avoid future earthquake losses. Life Safety. the Structural Engineers Association of California developed the Vision 2000 Report. Performance Objectives were developed by linking one of these performance levels to a specific level of earthquake hazard. 1997b).5 First-Generation Performance-Based Procedures Performance-based design as a formal process originated in response to the seismic design problem in the 1990’s. Further. Concurrently. blast. snow. First-generation procedures also introduced a set of analytical procedures of varying levels of complexity that could be used to simulate the seismic response of buildings. flood. which addressed seismic upgrade of existing buildings. and terrorist attack. They also introduced the concept of performance related to damage of both structural and nonstructural components. Preparation of the initial set of procedures for performance-based seismic design commenced in 1992. That initial effort culminated with the publication of the FEMA 273 Report. in which code-based strength and ductility requirements applicable for the design of new buildings could not be practically or reliably applied to the evaluation and upgrade of existing buildings. and can be adapted for use in performance-based design for other extreme hazards including fire. Immediate Occupancy. 1. which described a performance-based seismic design framework for design of new buildings. and Operational Performance. These documents outlined the initial concepts of performance levels related to damageability.

With the development of second-generation performance-based procedures. FEMA 356 represents an incremental improvement to the first-generation procedures of FEMA 273. Case Studies: An Assessment of the NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (BSSC. Performance-based seismic design has become a staple in engineering practice. These first-generation procedures represented an important improvement over then-current building code procedures in that they provided a systematic means of designing buildings to achieve a desired level of performance. 2000).nonlinear analysis techniques and acceptance criteria. and the use of advanced nonlinear analysis techniques is becoming more commonplace. 1999). (2) questions regarding the level of conservatism present in second-generation acceptance criteria. The development of FEMA 356 included technical updates to the analytical requirements and acceptance criteria of FEMA 273 based on information gained from the use of the procedures in engineering practice. limitations in second-generation procedures are being identified by researchers and practitioners. Although intended for existing buildings.7 The Need for Next-Generation Performance-Based Procedures As the state of knowledge and experience base advances. The expanded use of performance-based procedures in the present secondgeneration has resulted in a knowledge base of practical experience on designing with performance-based criteria and communicating with stakeholders on performance-based design issues. and (4) the need for alternative ways of FEMA 445 1: Introduction 7 . These limitations include: (1) questions regarding the accuracy of second-generation analytical procedures in predicting actual building response. engineering practitioners have become more familiar with its concepts. (3) the inability to reliably and economically apply second-generation performance-based procedures to the design of new buildings. performance-based seismic design practice is generally based on implementation of procedures and criteria contained within the FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ASCE. the procedures are being extrapolated for use in the performance-based design of new buildings. 1. and from the FEMA 343 Report.6 Present Second-Generation Performance-Based Procedures At present. 1.

In order to fulfill the promise of performance-based engineering and help ensure that performance-based seismic design delivers on its full potential for reducing future losses from earthquakes. Develop a framework for performance assessment that properly accounts for. repair costs. and adequately communicates to stakeholders.8 Next-generation performance-based design procedures will be developed using an analytical framework for estimating risk that is well developed and has precedent in a variety of proprietary risk analysis software packages commonly used by the insurance industry and others. limitations in our ability to accurately predict response. and downtime (time of occupancy interruption) for 8 1: Introduction FEMA 445 . casualties. and Modify current structural procedures to assess performance based more on global response parameters. and time of occupancy interruption. and time of occupancy interruption) that better relate to the decision-making needs of stakeholders.communicating performance to stakeholders that is more meaningful and useful for decision-making purposes. Create procedures for estimating probable repair costs. Framework for Next-Generation Performance-Based Procedures and Relationship to HAZUS • • • • • • 1. which can constitute a significant percentage of the economic loss associated with damaging earthquakes.g. and that communicate these losses in a way that is more meaningful to stakeholders. casualties. Expand current nonstructural procedures to explicitly assess the damageability and post-earthquake functionality of nonstructural components and systems. The framework will be used to estimate the possibility of incurring earthquake-induced direct losses (repair costs). and uncertainty in the level of earthquake hazard. Fill knowledge gaps and investigate the conservatism and reliability of present second-generation acceptance criteria. for both new and existing buildings. next-generation performance-based design procedures are needed to: • Revise the discrete performance levels defined in first-generation procedures to create new performance measures (e. so that the response of individual components does not unnecessarily control the prediction of overall structural performance. Refine current analytical techniques to improve our ability to more accurately simulate building response. casualties.

The technical details of the framework for nextgeneration building-specific loss estimation procedures are described in Appendix A. (HAZUS) loss estimation software. HAZUS was developed primarily for providing policy makers and local planners with the ability to project the potential impacts of earthquakes. To the extent that information contained within HAZUS platform can be used for performing individual building assessments. depend on firstand second-generation performance-based analytical techniques for which limitations have been identified and improvement is needed. FEMA 445 1: Introduction 9 . and loss. Together these factors limit the usefulness of HAZUS platform in taking advantage of the benefits of performance-based design. hurricanes. it enables an experienced engineer with considerable expertise to develop building-specific relationships between earthquake intensity.S. the method of characterizing the performance of nonstructural components in HAZUS AEBM is very general. HAZUS is most applicable to performing global estimates of loss on the general building stock in a region. it cannot be used to assist designers in evaluating the potential benefits of design decisions related to improving nonstructural performance. the National Institute of Building Sciences has implemented a form of this methodology in the Hazards U. and is not directly applicable to the performancebased evaluation or design of individual buildings. Therefore. As a result. Also. that information will be incorporated within the framework of next-generation performance-based procedures developed under this Program Plan. however. and will address both new buildings and existing buildings. and floods on large portfolios of buildings. Under contract with the FEMA. and cannot readily account for the various installation details of such components inherent in an individual building design. HAZUS includes a methodology for developing a performance estimate on a specific building. Known as the HAZUS Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM). damage. These relationships.individual buildings of interest.

.

Development of Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings. refines. effective. and Can be used to improve the provisions of present-day building codes and design procedures. and extends the performance based seismic design work of several earlier projects including: • FEMA 273/274. Program Background • • • 2. FEMA 445 2: Program Plan 11 . has been performed under the ATC-58 project. Organization. and the Performance-Based Design Process 2. The preparation of this Program Plan. 1997a. Are suitable for practical implementation in a design office. Background.Chapter 2 Program Plan: Goals. Work to be performed under this Program Plan updates.1 Program Goals This Program Plan serves as the basis for a two-phase. b). multiyear project that will result in next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines that: • • Are practical. Quantify uncertainty regarding the ability of a building to achieve the desired performance goals. FEMA contracted with the Applied Technology Council to begin implementation of a plan to develop next-generation performancebased seismic design procedures and guidelines. and applicable to both the upgrade of existing buildings and the design of new buildings. NEHRP Guidelines and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC. Define and use building performance goals that are both measurable and meaningful to building owners and other decision-makers when selecting a basis for design. efficient.2 In September 2001. and developmental work completed to date.

regulators. and a review and update of FEMA 349. and insurers. which brought FEMA 273/274 to the prestandard level. Both of these earlier plans called for multi-year development programs that would advance the technical aspects of performance-based design. 2000). 1996). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ASCE. a national research plan developed by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute on behalf of the National Science Foundation. including a Project Management Committee to direct the project technical activities. commercial and residential tenants. • • This Program Plan updates two earlier FEMA action plans for developing next-generation of performance based seismic design procedures: FEMA 283 Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings – an Action Plan (EERC. This Program Plan is also intended to implement the developing body of related earthquake engineering research as outlined in Securing Society Against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses (EERI. 1995). The FEMA 356 document is in the process of being replaced by the ASCE 41 Standard for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE.• FEMA 356. and have served to help formulate the management structure and technical framework for the development of next-general performance-based seismic design guidelines: • A project management structure was established in early 2002. lenders. 2000).3 Preparatory Work from 2001 to Date Initial work as part of the development of this Program Plan included an evaluation of alternative means of characterizing performance as a basis for design. and FEMA 349 Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design (EERI. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC. and a Project Steering Committee to provide project oversight and linkage with the research and stakeholder communities. Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings (SEAOC. 1996). 2006). and also address the needs of various stakeholder groups such as building owners. 2002). Vision 2000. The following elements of the FEMA 349 Action Plan have already been conducted in the development of this Program Plan. The roles and responsibilities of these committees are described in Section 3. 2. 12 2: Program Plan FEMA 445 . ATC-40.3.

As part of the effort to make the next-general performance-based seismic design guidelines more understandable and more useful to stakeholders and decision-makers.org). The workshop program. • • FEMA 445 2: Program Plan 13 . an initial draft of recommended updates to the original FEMA 349 Action Plan. property insurance professionals. Proceedings of FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on Communicating Earthquake Risk. activities. as well as members of the project team.atcouncil. property managers. which can be downloaded from the ATC web site (www. That Task Group participated in the June 2002 workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to confirm that performance-based design would be accepted by the stakeholder communities. findings.atcouncil.• A Workshop on Communicating Earthquake Risk was held in June 2002 and was attended by representatives of several important stakeholder communities including building regulators. and a list of workshop participants have been documented in the ATC-58-3 Report. identify aspects of earthquake performance of buildings that are of most concern to stakeholders. The purpose of this workshop was to obtain information on important advances in performance-based design and input on modifications that should be made to the FEMA 349 Action Plan. which can be downloaded from the ATC web site (www. and determine how best to express building performance in terms that are understandable and useful to stakeholders and decision-makers. Proceedings of FEMA-Sponsored Workshop on PerformanceBased Seismic Design. presentations.org).org). A Performance-Based Design Workshop was held in February 2003 and was attended by prominent members of the structural and earthquake engineering research and practice communities as well as members of the project team. developers and corporate risk managers. which can be downloaded from the ATC web site (www. In addition to summarizing current stakeholder preferences for communicating earthquake risk. discussions. and a list of workshop participants have been documented in the ATC-58-1 Report. The workshop program. and subsequently developed the ATC-58-2 Report Preliminary Evaluation of Methods for Defining Performance. this report documents the ways in which performance has been characterized in the past. mortgage lenders.atcouncil. a Task Group was formed in May 2002 to evaluate alternative methods of expressing and communicating building performance and to develop a report recommending how the project should characterize performance.

Stakeholders and decision-makers will continue to be involved in the project as work progresses. and updating FEMA 349 to serve as the basis for this Program Plan. No one way of expressing building performance would meet the needs and capabilities of all decisionmakers. and a Risk Management Products (RMP) Team were established in September 2002.4 Program Organization This Program Plan is divided into two phases: • Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings. 2. and a series of efforts that focus on stakeholder needs: • • • An effort to identify the key decision-making parameters and processes used by different stakeholder groups. a Nonstructural Performance Products Team (NPP). In Phase 1. the Project Management Committee developed a sophisticated and flexible framework for estimating probable earthquake losses in buildings. periodic input to and reviews by stakeholders on various project products. in part because stakeholders have diverse needs and varying levels of knowledge and experience.• A Structural Performance Products (SPP) Team. The roles and responsibilities of these teams are described in Chapters 3 through 6. These three teams were charged with reviewing FEMA 349. To embrace diverse needs. a methodology will be developed for assessing the probable seismic performance of individual buildings in future earthquakes. As described above. including considerations of maintenance. Efforts to develop simple tools to assist decision-makers in selecting appropriate performance objectives. 14 2: Program Plan FEMA 445 . However. all decision-makers must understand the risk associated with various options in order to make an intelligent decision. reviewing input received from the workshops. for either a single scenario event or on a probabilistic basis. These activities include ongoing review and input by stakeholder representatives on the Project Steering Committee. and Development of guidelines to assist stakeholders in taking advantage of the benefits of performance-based design. key activities conducted to date by the project have focused on identifying and developing a system that will allow effective communication of earthquake performance choices in ways that are meaningful to stakeholders and decision-makers.

at various seismic hazard levels. Structural Performance Products. and results in products that are accessible and relevant to stakeholders. Recent research results will be incorporated to improve analysis and design procedures and reduce uncertainties in assessing performance. contents. and a formal program to educate stakeholders about performance-based seismic design. equipment. seismic design procedures and guidelines will be developed to assist engineers in designing buildings to meet desired performance goals. In Phase 2. Work in each phase will be conducted in six broad categories envisaged in the FEMA 349 Action Plan: • • • • • • Planning and Management Program. and to assist stakeholders in taking advantage of the benefits of performance-based design. piping. Structural Performance Products. Nonstructural Performance Products. Guidelines Products. Nonstructural Performance Products. The purpose of the Structural Performance Products tasks are to develop practical and reliable methodologies for assessing the seismic performance of structural systems found in both new and existing buildings. oversight committees. Risk Management Products. The purpose of the Planning and Management Program tasks are to ensure that the project achieves the vision of the plan. and other components and systems attached to the structural framing system. but focus on the nonstructural components of new or existing buildings.• Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines. and Stakeholders Guide Products. and summarized briefly below: Planning and Management Program. The Nonstructural Performance Products efforts will address both the installation of new components and the protection of FEMA 445 2: Program Plan 15 . The Nonstructural Performance Products tasks are similar to the Structural Performance Products tasks. These assessment methodologies are intended for use by engineers in designing structures capable of achieving selected performance goals. ceilings. They include establishing a project management structure. Nonstructural components include partitions. The tasks associated with these categories of work are described in Chapters 3 through 6.

Stakeholders Guide Products will include instruction on the selection of appropriate performance objectives. and other nontechnical decision-makers. The Risk Management Products tasks are intended to be oriented primarily around financial issues. appendices. A focus is to provide guidance to stakeholders in selecting appropriate performance objectives. and bring consistency to performance-based seismic design throughout the industry. It will also develop guidelines for component testing and certification. These guides are to be written for non-technical audiences and will contain graphical aids and example applications. performance. Nonstructural Performance Products. capital planning. 16 2: Program Plan FEMA 445 . Guidelines Products. or supporting documents) to assist in their use. and hazard to allow a wide range of design objectives to be evaluated as a basis for nextgeneration procedures. and financial tools that permit decision-makers to make funding and investment decisions using performance-based design concepts. institutions with financial interests in the building under consideration. loss reduction. and will include explanatory material (technical commentary. and other factors related to risk management. cost-benefit modeling. The preparation of Stakeholders Guide Products will be performed as part of the Structural Performance Products. Activities include studies on reliability. Risk Management Products. Stakeholders Guide Products. Stakeholders Guide Products are envisaged to function as references and planning tools for owners. These guidelines are envisaged to form the technical basis for everyday design practice. if appropriate. Guidelines Products are the guidelines documents that will be used by engineers and other design professionals in implementing next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures in practice. and Risk Management Products tasks. The preparation of Guidelines Products will be performed as part of the Structural Performance Products. and Risk Management Products tasks. Nonstructural Performance Products.components already in place in existing buildings. but also address casualty issues. The guidelines will be usable for both design of new buildings and upgrade of existing buildings. It is intended that these documents would be published as FEMA guidelines that could be incorporated into future code procedures. A major effort under this set of tasks includes the development of methods to combine various levels of risk. They include development of methodologies for calculating the costs and benefits of implementing various options under performancebased design.

if required. Figure 2-1 shows how Phases 1 and 2 of this Program Plan will contribute to the steps in the overall process. As described earlier. performance-based design is an iterative process that begins with the selection of performance objectives. Figure 2-1 2. until the desired performance level is achieved. followed by the development of a preliminary design. an assessment as to whether or not the design meets the performance objectives. Performance objectives are statements of the acceptable risk of incurring different levels of damage and the consequential losses that occur as a result of this damage.1 Performance-based design process as it relates to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Program Plan. as it relates to nextgeneration performance-based design procedures envisioned by this Program Plan. at a specified level FEMA 445 2: Program Plan 17 .2.5. Step 1: Select Performance Objectives The process begins with the selection of design criteria stated in the form of one or more performance objectives.3. A more detailed description of the technical framework for the next-generation seismic performance assessment methodology is provided in Appendix A. Each of these steps is described in the sections that follow. and finally redesign and reassessment.5 Performance-Based Seismic Design Process This section provides an expanded discussion of the performance-based seismic design process introduced in Section 1.

performance objectives are statements of the acceptable risk of incurring casualties. An example of an intensity-based performance objective is a statement that if ground shaking with a 475-year-mean-recurrence intensity occurs. there should be no life loss or significant injury. performance objectives must be expressed considering the potential performance of both structural and nonstructural systems. or both. on the average the annual earthquake damage repair costs for the building should not exceed 1% of the replacement cost.of seismic hazard. An example of a scenario-based performance objective is a statement that if a magnitude-7. An example of a time-based performance objective is a statement that there should be less than a 2 percent chance in 50 years that life loss will occur in the building due to earthquake damage. Phase 2 of this Program Plan includes the development of guides to assist stakeholders in selecting appropriate performance objectives.0 earthquake occurs on the San Andreas fault. direct economic loss (repair costs). 18 2: Program Plan FEMA 445 . given that a specific earthquake event occurs. and occupancy interruption time (downtime) associated with repair or replacement of damaged structural and nonstructural building elements. considering all of the earthquakes that might affect the building in that time period and the probability of occurrence of each. In the next-generation performance-based design procedures. A time-based performance objective is a quantification of the acceptable probability over a period of time that a given level of loss will be experienced or exceeded. and taking advantage of the benefits of performance-based design. and the mean return period for occupancy interruption exceeding one day should be 100 years. repair costs should not exceed 5% of the building replacement cost. at a specified level of seismic hazard. and occupancy of the building should not be interrupted for more than a week. These performance objectives can be stated in three different risk formats: An intensity-based performance objective is a quantification of the acceptable level of loss. Since losses can be associated with structural damage. there should be no life loss or significant injury. A scenario-based performance objective is a quantification of the acceptable level of loss. given that a specific intensity of ground shaking is experienced. and occupancy interruption should not exceed 30 days. nonstructural damage. repair cost should not exceed 20 percent of the building’s replacement value.

3 Step 3: Assess Performance After the preliminary design has been developed. energy dissipation devices. for example. or could result in solutions that do not efficiently meet the performance objectives. and specification of the manner in which they are installed. for example.5. Some may refer to current building code provisions. Analysis of the structure to determine its probable response and the intensity of shaking transmitted to supported nonstructural components FEMA 445 2: Program Plan 19 . Presence of any protective technologies. Building configuration. including the number of stories. and the presence of irregularities. Approximate size and location of various structural and nonstructural components and systems. seismic isolators. Selection of an appropriate preliminary design concept is important for effectively and efficiently implementing the performance-based design process. floor plate arrangement at each story.2 Step 2: Develop Preliminary Building Design The preliminary design for a structure includes definition of a number of important building attributes that can significantly affect the performance capability of the building. a series of simulations (analyses of building response to loading) are performed to assess the probable performance of the building. Performance assessment includes the following steps: • • Characterization of the ground shaking hazard. story height. Inappropriate preliminary designs could result in extensive iteration before an acceptable solution is found. These attributes include: • • • • • Location and nature of the site. Basic structural system. others might refer to first-generation performance-based design procedures. 2.2. steel moment frame or masonry bearing walls. engineers have few resources on which to base a preliminary design for meeting a specified performance objective.5. Phase 2 of this Program Plan includes the development of guides to assist engineers in identifying appropriate strategies for design and developing efficient preliminary designs. At present. or damage-resistant elements. and still others might use a more intuitive approach.

Determination of the probable damage to nonstructural components as a function of structural and nonstructural response. respectively termed: hazard functions.as a function of ground shaking intensity. as would be imparted by a severe earthquake. Performance assessment is based on assumptions of a number of highly uncertain factors. and their connections incorporated in the building. and related damage. and then loss are required. In a general sense. and loss functions. and mathematically manipulating these functions to assess probable losses. Computation of the expected future losses as a function of intensity. or 20 2: Program Plan FEMA 445 . structural and nonstructural response. damage functions. capital and occupancy losses as a function of structural and nonstructural damage. how sensitive these tenant improvements might be to the effects of ground shaking. • • • • Determination of the probable damage to the structure at various levels of response. building response. where intensity may be expressed in terms of peak ground acceleration. and the tolerance of the occupancy to operating in less than ideal conditions.S. Owner’s efficiency in obtaining the necessary assistance to assess and repair damage. the process involves the formation of four types of probability functions. In the case of extreme loading. • • To complete a performance assessment. Nature of building occupancy at the time of the earthquake. members. spectral response acceleration or similar parameters. Determination of the potential for casualty. the types of tenant improvements that will be present. Availability of designers and contractors to conduct repairs following the earthquake. Hazard functions are mathematical expressions of the probability that a building will experience ground shaking of different intensity levels. response functions. These factors include: • • • Quality of building construction and building condition at the time of the earthquake. Actual strength of the various materials. damage. statistical relationships between earthquake hazard. Geological Survey (USGS) ground shaking hazard maps. Hazard functions can be derived from the U. simulations may be performed using nonlinear analysis techniques.

the design is completed. given that different levels of ground shaking intensity are experienced. to be developed in Phase 2 of this Program Plan. The design guides. Response functions are mathematical expressions of the conditional probability of incurring various levels of building response. repair and replacement costs. given that certain damage occurs. for assisting engineers in identifying appropriate strategies for design and for developing efficient preliminary designs are intended to serve as resources for efficient redesign to meet performance objectives. The mathematical manipulation of these functions may take on several different forms. If not. Damage functions are mathematical expressions of the conditional probability that the building as a whole. the design must be revised in an iterative process until the performance objectives are met. member forces. it may be necessary to perform either numerical integration or Monte Carlo type analyses. In some instances it FEMA 445 2: Program Plan 21 .may be developed based on a site-specific study that considers the seismicity of various faults in the region and the response characteristics of the building site. or individual structural and nonstructural components.5. Appendices B and C provide more detailed technical information on these alternative computations of loss. For other types of assessment. given that different levels of building response occur. Damage functions are generally established by laboratory testing. floor accelerations and similar parameters. They are determined by postulating that different levels of building damage have occurred and estimating the potential for injury persons who may be present as well as the probable repair /restoration effort involved. will be damaged to different levels. Loss functions are mathematical expressions of the conditional probability of incurring various losses. They are obtained by performing structural analysis of a building for different intensities of ground shaking. including casualties. closed-form solutions can be developed that will enable direct calculation of loss. 2. and occupancy interruption times. Building response is expressed in the form of parameters that are obtained from structural analysis. joint plastic rotation demands. analytical simulation or a combination of these approaches.4 Step 4: Revise Design If the simulated performance meets or exceeds the performance objectives. For some types of performance assessments. including story drifts.

and with modification. 2000). measures will be taken to ensure coordination of the development of performance-based seismic design guidelines with other parallel efforts. some relaxation of the original performance objectives may be appropriate. While this Program Plan does not explicitly include development of design guidance for other hazards. Relevant material for other hazards will be referenced or incorporated into project publications. the performance-based design options contained both in the International Performance Code (ICC. are patterned after the performance basis developed for FEMA 356 (ASCE. in which case. 2. wind. which are applicable to the full range of design perils. however. the technological framework and procedures are transferable. These activities will be carried out on an ongoing basis by the Project Management Committee. and progressive collapse due to blast or explosion.may not be possible to meet the stated objectives at reasonable cost. For example. could be applicable to performance-based design for other hazards.6 Applicability of Performance-Based Design to Other Structural Hazards Design professional and stakeholder communities are also interested in the development of performance-based design procedures and guidelines for other extreme hazards including fire. 2001) and NFPA-5000 Building and Construction Safety Code (NFPA. the Project Steering Committee. The GSA Progressive Collapse Guidelines (ARA. 2003) used in the design of federal buildings to resist terror-related blast hazards are also based on technology contained in the FEMA 356 Prestandard as well as the FEMA 350 Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings (SAC. and other members of the project team. There is substantial past precedent to indicate that practice improvements in performance-based design for seismic resistance have direct impact and applicability to performance-based design for other hazards. a publication on performance-based seismic design of steel moment frame structures. The basic methodology developed under this program does not presently address design for other hazards directly. 2000a). flood. where applicable. blast. 2003). snow. 22 2: Program Plan FEMA 445 .

“Space” will be left in the new framework so that new information can be “filled in” by future research efforts on specific types of structural and nonstructural systems.1 Phase 1 of this Program Plan. 3.Chapter 3 Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings Phase 1 Objectives 3. and loss functions for a building of any construction and occupancy. The framework will include information for selected structural and nonstructural systems. and occupancy interruption time (downtime). for FEMA 445 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology 23 . The framework for performance assessment depicted in the guidelines developed in Phase 1 will clearly identify where such data exists and where it does not. A complete framework for implementing performance assessment procedures will be developed. this framework will provide direction on how new data should be developed. Research data does not currently exist. direct economic loss (repair costs). and establish new vocabulary for communicating performance to stakeholders in the form of losses related to casualties. however. Phase 1 will update and refine the existing framework for performance assessment available in present-generation performance-based procedures. damage. Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings.1 Expandable Framework The performance assessment methodology developed in Phase 1 will be applicable to all classes of buildings and structural and nonstructural systems commonly used in buildings. including procedures for developing response. Phase 1 of this Program Plan has been developed based on the following information: 1. will develop a methodology for assessing the probable performance of individual buildings in future earthquakes. create a practical methodology to assess the consequences of performance (losses) considering the unique design and construction characteristics of individual buildings. Work preparatory to beginning Phase 1 has already been performed. and the Program Plan can be initiated immediately. Where research data does not exist.1. to fill in all the necessary data to complete damage and loss calculations for all such structural and nonstructural systems. Complete framework.

S. Efforts will be made to collect these data and obtain permission for their use. and loss functions will be developed for structural systems for which sufficient research data presently exist. however. 3. and ground motion hazard characterization. damage. These systems are identified in Chapter 4. Procedures on how new structural and nonstructural performance data should be developed and incorporated into the methodology will be provided in the project report Interim Protocols For Determining Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components Through Laboratory Testing (FEMA 461. currently being constructed by the U. Procedures for modifying these functions to suit specific building designs will also be developed.S. under development). Procedures for developing the response. and assumes that the necessary basic research will be performed by other programs: the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) program currently being conducted under National Science Foundation sponsorship. 3. so that the methodology can be implemented by engineers. and private industry sources. damage. damage. Structural Systems. the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). the Department of Energy. The framework will clearly identify where such data exists and where it does not. 2. and loss functions will be developed for nonstructural systems commonly used in buildings. damage. Sufficient earthquake performance data for some classes of nonstructural components and systems has been developed in support of seismic qualification efforts by the U. structural and nonstructural component testing. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. basic research is needed on simulation techniques. Nonstructural Components and Systems. and loss functions from such data will be developed and documented. For nonstructural components and systems for which no such data presently exist. Geologic Survey. utilizes basic research that has already been performed.1. This Program Plan. the programs of the three NSF-funded national earthquake engineering research centers. and other university-based research programs. 24 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology FEMA 445 . and will allow for future expansion to include new research as it is developed. engineering judgment will be used to establish notional response.2 Research Needed From Other Programs To complete the development of a performance assessment methodology that addresses all structural and nonstructural systems commonly used in buildings.which research data exist. Standard structural response. Standard nonstructural response. and loss functions so that complete performance assessments can be performed.

and control of the work performed by the three Product Development Teams. Risk Management Products. Phase 1 work has been subdivided into one overall coordinating and management function and three technical areas. including the various construction materials trade associations and individual construction product manufacturers and suppliers. Guidelines Products. technical oversight. Nonstructural Performance Products. Structural Performance Products. consisting of dedicated engineers and researchers with specialized expertise structural performance. and Stakeholders Guide Products. They are in place to ensure that results are coordinated between the teams and consistent with the overall goals of the Program Plan. FEMA 445 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology 25 . these committees provide management. will also perform some of the research necessary to facilitate the use of their products and materials in a performance-based design environment. The project management structure consists of three committees: • • • Project Management Committee Project Technical Committee Project Steering Committee Collectively. 3.It is reasonable to expect that private industry. Work in each technical area will be performed by one of three Product Development Teams. 3.4: Planning and Management Program.3 Phase 1 Project Management Planning and Management Program tasks will be carried out within the project management structure shown in Figure 3-1. nonstructural performance. or risk management.2 Phase 1 Organization Phase 1 of the Program Plan is organized around six broad categories of work introduced in Section 2. It is envisaged that this management structure will be used throughout implementation of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the program.

The Project Management Committee will be responsible for defining the scope of work for consultants and project teams. as required. The Project Management Committee will select consultants and form teams to carry out program tasks. accurate.3. and/or other personnel qualified to perform the specific functions needed. engineering practitioners. 26 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology FEMA 445 .1 Project Management Committee The Project Management Committee will review Program activities on a regular basis and will be available for immediate consultation by the funding agency and by all three Product Development Teams. Act as liaison with other related concurrent research and development projects. and for ensuring that work performed by each consultant or team is timely. These consultants will be qualified academic researchers. ATC Staff Technical Support Administration 3. and useful.FEMA Applied Technology Council Project Management Committee Project Executive Director (Chair) Project Technical Director (Co-Chair) 4 Members Project Steering Committee Project Technical Committee Project Technical Director (Chair) Structural Performance Products Team Nonstructural Performance Products Team Risk Management Products Team Figure 3-1 Project management structure. The Project Management Committee will: • • • Develop status report formats for each consultant or team to use on a regular basis. Hold regular meetings to discuss progress of the project and resolve any conflicts. including product development and review.

and social science research. building regulators.3 Project Steering Committee The Project Steering Committee will serve as an advisory body to the Project Management Committee and will be populated to provide diverse perspectives on key technical issues and conduct of the project. and team leaders for each of the three Product Development Teams. and four senior representatives. The exact size and composition of this group may change over time. lenders. one from each of the following communities: engineering research. researchers. The committee will be chaired by the Project Technical Director. structural design. project personnel. building developers. The Project Steering Committee will be composed of 12 to 14 senior representatives of various stakeholder communities.3. building owners. timetables for different tasks.• Serve as a conduit for transfer of information between consultants and teams to ensure that all efforts are complimentary and supplementary. Project Technical Director. Some of these meetings will involve additional representatives of the three Development Teams so that specific technical issues may be presented and discussed and technical interfaces developed and resolved. including design professionals. insurers. other selected members of the Project Management Committee. and will provide technical and content review of products. The Project Steering Committee will make recommendations on products to be developed. who will serve as co-chair and be responsible for technical direction of project efforts. as best suits the needs of the program and the technical work that is currently being performed.3. The Project Steering Committee will generally meet one or more times per year. and other groups. 3.2 Project Technical Committee The Project Technical Committee will coordinate the efforts of the three Product Development Teams. FEMA 445 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology 27 . The Project Management Committee will meet at approximately 6-8 week intervals throughout the project. The Project Technical Committee will generally meet on a quarterly basis throughout the duration of the program. who will serve as chair and be responsible for the management of the project financial performance. The Project Management Committee will consist of six people. the Project Technical Director. including a Project Executive Director. 3. It will be composed of the Project Executive Director. building regulation.

Tasks related to integrating the structural and nonstructural performance functions with the ground shaking hazard to obtain estimates of performance in terms of probable casualties. 3. • • • 28 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology FEMA 445 . and appropriate methods of selecting and scaling ground motion records to represent various shaking intensities. to derive structure-specific response functions. stiffness and damping. SPP-3: Identify appropriate measures of ground shaking intensity. such as spectral response acceleration at the structure’s fundamental period.4 Summary of Phase 1 Technical Tasks Work in each technical area will be performed by one of three Product Development Teams: • Structural Performance Products Team. and loss functions for various structural systems. • • A summary of Phase 1 tasks to be performed by each of these teams is provided in the subsections that follow.3. Tasks related to assessing the performance of structural systems including development of response. and loss functions for these components and systems.4. damage (fragility).1 Structural Performance Products Tasks Principal Phase 1 tasks to be performed by the Structural Performance Products (SPP) Team will include: • SPP-1: Prepare structural sections of the Performance Assessment Guidelines including guidance on selection of ground motions. and considering variability in strength. SPP-4: Develop rules for modeling and analyzing structures at various intensities of shaking. Nonstructural Performance Product Team. as well as development of the means for communicating these risks to stakeholders and decision-makers. performing structural analysis. and probable loss of occupancy and use of buildings. Risk Management Product Team. probable repair and replacement costs. SPP-2: Identify appropriate structural response quantities (engineering demand parameters) for use in predicting damage to the different types of structural components and systems. Detail descriptions of Phase 1 tasks are provided in Chapter 4. development of response functions and damage functions. damage (fragility). Tasks related to assessing the performance of nonstructural components and systems including development of response.

repair/replacement costs and downtime. NPP-2: Develop a taxonomy of the typical nonstructural components and systems found in buildings. SPP-6: Develop structural designs for a series of case study buildings that will be used as a basis for development and testing of the performance assessment methodology and which will be used as example applications in the guidelines.4. NPP-3: Identify meaningful damage descriptors for the various types of nonstructural components and systems that are useful for determining the potential for incurring earthquake induced losses. Nonstructural Performance Products Tasks • • • 3. and predicting the consequences of damage to these components with regard to casualties. repair/replacement cost and downtime. repair costs and downtime. NPP-5: Identify and obtain access to the various proprietary and public domain databases of information on the seismic damageability of various types of nonstructural components. as a function of structural damage states.2 Principal Phase 1 tasks to be performed by the Nonstructural Performance Products (NPP) Team will include: • NPP-1: Prepare nonstructural sections of the Performance Assessment Guidelines including guidance on determining the damageability of nonstructural components and systems. and develop default relationships for typical structural systems. identifying those which are damageable and which have significant potential consequences in terms of casualties. NPP-4: Identify appropriate characterizations of the shaking input to various types of nonstructural components and systems that best correlate with damage to these components and systems. repair/replacement costs and downtime. • • • • FEMA 445 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology 29 . SPP-8: Develop general procedures that can be used to construct loss functions that relate the probability of experiencing various amounts of casualties. determining the behavior of these components at varying levels of building response.• SPP-5: Determine appropriate damage states for individual structural components. SPP-7: Develop analytical procedures that can be used to predict the demands on nonstructural components and systems as a function of ground shaking intensity. and entire structural systems that are sufficient to permit estimation of casualties.

simplified procedures to estimate response parameters for nonstructural components for a given set of engineering demand parameters. NPP-9: Develop general procedures that can be used to construct loss functions that relate the probability of experiencing various amounts of casualties. RMP-4: Develop a basic mathematical approach for calculating probable casualties. NPP-8: Develop approximate analytical procedures that can be used to predict damage sustained by complex nonstructural systems. including methods for expressing seismic performance of buildings. RMP-3: Develop general procedures for determining nonstructural loss functions that relate probable casualties.3 Principal Phase 1 tasks to be performed by the Risk Management Products (RMP) Team will include: • RMP-1: Prepare sections of the Performance Assessment Guidelines relating to the basic performance assessment methodology. as a function of nonstructural damage states for various types of components and systems. • • • 30 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology FEMA 445 . RMP-2: Develop general procedures for determining structural loss functions that relate probable casualties. repair/replacement costs and downtime. NPP-7: Develop approximate. repair/replacement cost and downtime assessments.• NPP-6: Develop standard procedures to perform laboratory tests of nonstructural components as a means of developing damage functions for these components. repair/replacement costs and downtime to various types of nonstructural damage. developing loss functions and integrating and aggregating losses to produce various types of probable casualty. NPP-10: Develop specifications of nonstructural components and systems for the series of case study buildings that will be used as a basis for development and testing of the performance assessment methodology and which will be used as example applications in the guidelines.4. structural and nonstructural response and damage. and develop default relationships for typical components and systems. Risk Management Products Tasks • • • • 3. as a function of ground shaking hazard. repair/replacement costs and downtime to various types of structural damage. repair/replacement costs and downtime.

broken down by Product Development Area. Table 3-1 presents an overall picture of the Phase 1 program as originally developed. tenants. RMP-7: Develop practical procedures to calculate loss as a function of the predicted damage to various elements. Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 present an overall picture of the Phase 1 reducedscope program prepared at the request of FEMA. RMP-6: Develop a practical approach that can be used to sum the effects of damage to the collection of individual structural and nonstructural components that comprise a building. or inflation. The budget for the reducescope program is approximately 50% of that for the original program. labor rates. Table 3-2 presents a detailed breakdown of these original costs by task. internal government costs. considering the interaction and dependencies involved.• RMP-5: Synthesize the basic mathematical approach for calculating probable performance into a systematic procedure that can be applied to real buildings in the design office. owners. The original Phase 1 total projected project costs were estimated at approximately $11 million in 2004 dollars. Detailed descriptions of Phase 1 tasks are provided in Chapter 4. Estimates of personnel and other costs associated with the Phase 1 tasks of this Program Plan have been developed using prevailing labor costs common to projects of this type at the time this plan was prepared. lenders. Phase 1 Projected Program Costs and Schedule • • • • 3. RMP-9: Develop standard methods of characterizing building performance that meet the need of the various stakeholders. and shows how these costs were intended to have been distributed throughout the program. contingent on the availability of sufficient levels of funding to enable the necessary work to be performed in the planned sequence. investors. RMP-8: Work with representatives of various stakeholder groups including building developers. insurers and design professionals to develop a common means of communicating seismic performance of buildings that is useful to the process of selecting appropriate or desired building performance as a basis for design projects. Figure 3-2 presents an overall summary of tasks and schedule for the originally planned Phase 1 work. regulators. into a coherent estimate of probable loss to the building. and the FEMA 445 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology 31 . and do not include escalation due to changes in the value of money.5 Phase 1 of this Program Plan was originally intended to be accomplished in five years.

and Table 3-4 presents a detailed breakdown of reduced-scope costs by specific tasks. The project is currently working at a reduced funding level. Figure 3-2 Summary of tasks and schedule for Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings. and Phase 1 development efforts are in year four of the extended seven year schedule. Table 3-3 presents the Phase 1 reduced-scope program broken down by Product Development Area.project schedule has been extended to seven years. 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology FEMA 445 32 .

Communications. Phase 1: Development of Performance Assessment Guidelines Product Development Area/Cost Element Cost ($1.415 Year 3 $110 175 170 50 505 100 170 185 195 75 35 760 100 170 170 110 110 30 100 100 890 475 200 $2.450 SPP-1 Structural Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines SPP-2 Identify Structural Engineering Demand Parameters (EDPs) SPP-3 Identify Intensity Measures SPP-4 Prepare Analysis Guidelines SPP-5 Identify Structure Damage Measures SPP-6 Structural Input to Model Building Studies SPP-7 Develop Procedures for Input to Nonstructural Evaluation SPP-8 Develop Structural Loss Functions NPP-1 Nonstructural Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines NPP-2 Develop Catalog of Nonstructural Components and Systems NPP-3 Identify Nonstructural Performance Measures NPP-4 Identify Input EDPs for Nonstructural Components NPP-5 Develop Nonstructural Performance Database NPP-6 Develop Nonstructural Performance Evaluation Protocols NPP-7 Simplify Nonstructural EDPs NPP-8 Develop Procedures for Computing Nonstructural Damage NPP-9 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions NPP-10 Nonstructural Input to Model Building Studies RMP-1 Develop Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines RMP-2 Develop Structural Loss Functions RMP-3 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions RMP-4 Develop Model for Aggregating Losses RMP-5 Formulate Concept Aggregation Procedures RMP-6 Procedure for Aggregating Local Effects to Global RMP-7 Develop Loss Integration Procedures RMP-8 Identify Stakeholder Needs RMP-9 Develop Standard Performance Characterizations Project Management. Oversight (Review). Supplies and Equipment) Project Total Table 3-2 Original Projected Program Costs by Task and Year ($1.450 Structural Performance Products Nonstructural Performance Products Risk Management Products Project Management.830 Year 4 110 150 180 50 490 130 90 0 155 35 50 460 85 170 70 110 40 100 100 675 475 200 $2.000) $2.085 Total 540 260 220 350 490 510 75 100 2545 490 150 150 75 470 275 390 230 70 150 2450 490 510 510 295 135 345 135 350 310 3080 2375 1000 $11. Administration. Phase 1 Task Year 1 $110 130 110 SPP Total 350 100 150 150 75 NPP Total 475 100 85 135 320 475 200 Annual Totals $1.375 $11. and Other Costs (Travel.450 3.545 2.820 RMP Total Year 2 130 175 170 150 75 700 170 195 50 415 170 170 55 85 35 65 45 625 475 200 $2.000).300 Year 5 $320 180 500 290 50 340 290 60 40 30 85 65 570 475 200 $2. Oversight & Administration Other Direct Costs FEMA 445 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology 33 .080 3.Table 3-1 Original Projected Costs by Product Development Area.

Procedures for Input to Nonstructural Evaluation SPP-8 Develop Structural Loss Functions NPP-1 Nonstr.000) $785 786 965 2462 $4998 Product Development Area/Cost Element Structural Performance Products Nonstructural Performance Products Risk Management Products Project Management. Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines NPP-2 Develop Catalog of Nonstructural Components NPP-3 Identify Nonstructural Performance Measures NPP-4 Identify Input EDPs for Nonstructural Components NPP-5 Develop Nonstructural Performance Database NPP-6 Dev. Oversight & Administration Other Direct Costs 34 3: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology FEMA 445 . Phase 1: Development of Performance Assessment Guidelines Cost ($1. Supplies and Equipment) Project Total Table 3-4 Reduced-Scope Projected Program Costs by Task and Year ($1. Demand Parameters) SPP-3 Identify Intensity Measures SPP-4 Prepare Analysis Guidelines SPP-5 Identify Structure Damage Measures SPP-6 Structural Input to Model Building Studies SPP-7 Dev.Table 3-3 Reduced-Scope Projected Costs by Product Development Area. and Other Costs (Travel. Damage NPP-9 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions NPP-10 Nonstructural Input to Model Building Studies RMP-1 Develop Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines RMP-2 Develop Structural Loss Functions RMP-3 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions RMP-4 Develop Model for Aggregating Losses RMP-5 Formulate Concept Aggregation Procedures RMP-6 Proc. for Aggregating Local Effects to Global RMP-7 Develop Loss Integration Procedures RMP-8 Identify Stakeholder Needs RMP-9 Develop Standard Performance Characterizations Project Management. Nonstructural Performance Evaluation Protocols NPP-7 Simplify Nonstructural EDPs NPP-8 Develop Procedures for Computing Nonstr. Administration. Oversight (Review). Phase 1 Task Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 $8 70 17 SPP Total 95 8 20 15 20 10 17 90 8 5 10 17 40 255 120 Annual Totals $600 RMP Total NPP Total 20 20 10 70 33 33 186 65 30 10 33 138 10 20 33 39 15 10 127 240 58 $749 $33 20 10 30 20 33 146 33 50 65 10 158 33 55 40 20 20 10 178 230 137 $849 75 17 50 33 175 40 45 10 17 112 45 17 40 75 177 230 157 $851 $42 33 75 42 85 10 33 170 42 45 33 75 195 230 180 $850 $42 33 75 42 10 33 85 42 40 33 100 215 240 135 $750 $33 33 33 33 33 33 120 130 $349 Total 158 40 30 115 160 133 50 99 785 158 20 65 45 90 20 20 195 40 133 786 158 15 215 83 50 119 270 35 20 965 1545 917 $4998 SPP-1 Structural Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines SPP-2 Identify Structural Engr.000). Communications.

The Structural Performance Products tasks will be performed in coordination with the Risk Management Product tasks related to calculating losses as a function of structural and nonstructural damage. and methods of predicting structural damage as a function of building response. including: identification of appropriate intensity measures for use in analysis. in general. and various forms of masonry wall systems. coupled concrete walls. The first guidelines to be developed will be those for which adequate research results are currently available. For the purposes of this Program Plan. including braced steel frames.Chapter 4 Phase 1: Developing a Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Buildings—Technical Tasks 4. FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 35 . cover the range of structural systems and behaviors are: • • • • Steel moment frames Concrete moment frames Cantilever concrete wall systems Wood wall systems Should adequate research data and funding be available. Finally. this effort could be extended to include other systems. and the Nonstructural Performance Products tasks that predict nonstructural performance as a function of both ground shaking intensity and structural response.1 Phase 1 Structural Performance Products Tasks The purpose of the Structural Performance Products tasks is to develop a practical and reliable generalized methodology for assessing the performance of building structural systems. the generalized methodology will be developed into a straightforward and practical series of implementation guidelines. four representative systems are planned to be used. Systems for which there would appear to be adequate research data available and which. identification of preferred approaches to employing structural analysis to predict building response as a function of intensity.

Figure 4-1 presents the Structural Performance Products tasks that will be undertaken in Phase 1. The Structural Performance Products Team will be responsible for developing those portions of the guidelines relating to characterizing ground shaking hazards through intensity measures.The Structural Performance Products Team consisting of a team leader.1 Structural Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines (SPP-1) The development of performance assessment guidelines will be jointly performed by the three Product Development Teams. 4. along with a schedule for their completion (see also Table 3-1). The Structural Performance Products Team will retain graduate student assistants and consultants to perform many of the development tasks. a researcher knowledgeable in the state of art and state of practice of structural analysis. evaluation. and upgrade of buildings. Figure 4-1 Phase 1: Schedule for structural performance products tasks. Preliminary draft guidelines will be developed in the first year of the program. modeling and analyzing structures to derive building-specific structural response functions and to develop input data for the evaluation of nonstructural components and systems.1. The performance assessment guidelines will be developed incrementally over the five-year span of Phase 1. This will enable the Structural Performance 36 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . and development of structural fragilities. The team will include at least one expert practicing structural engineer routinely engaged in the design. These SPP tasks are detailed in the sections below. and at least one engineer or researcher with extensive expertise and knowledge of the behavior and design requirements for each of the structural systems will perform these tasks. identification of structural damage measures.

and added to throughout Phase 1 to incorporate the results of completed tasks in all three program areas. A joint venture partnership of the Structural Engineers Association of California.2 Identify Structural Engineering Demand Parameters (SPP-2) Task SPP-2 will identify appropriate engineering demand parameters for use in assessing the performance of the four common structural systems (steel moment frame. wood wall. cumulative quantities such as cumulative strain energy.Products Team to conceptualize the various design tasks that must be performed and understand how they fit into the overall process of performance-based seismic design. with Task SPP-4 to develop analysis guidelines and with Task SPP-5 to develop guidelines for translating engineering demand parameters into component damage states. expanded. and are meaningful for the purpose of predicting the various types of damage of significance to performance assessment for the particular structural systems.S. A list of the structural components and elements critical to performance for each framing system will be identified and engineering demand parameters developed. Engineering demand parameters may consist of peak quantities. 2 California Institute of Technology FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 37 1 .1. The final product of this task will be ready-for-publication sections of guidelines on structural performance assessment. It is important that the recommended engineering demand parameters can be readily obtained from analysis. and concrete and masonry wall structures) and their components. such as peak interstory drift. Pertinent existing research includes work done under the FEMA/SAC1 Steel Project (for steel moment frames). information from existing research will be used to identify and characterize the engineering demand parameters. now known as Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering.Japan projects. This SPP-2 task will be coordinated with efforts undertaken in Task SPP-1 to incorporate findings into the performance assessment guidelines. the Applied Technology Council. Task SPP-2 will engage faculty and design professionals active in these projects in one or more workshops/meetings to assist in identifying the appropriate engineering demand parameters. For each of these components and elements. and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). and relevant U. The draft guidelines developed in this initial effort will be updated. the FEMA-funded CUREE Caltech2 Wood-Frame Program (for wood walls). 4. or combinations of these such as are contained in the Park-Ang (1985) and related damage indices. concrete moment frame. have relatively small variation at different levels of building response.

One or more meetings to solicit input from researchers and design professionals knowledgeable on this subject will be held. Available information will be reviewed to develop a shortlist of alternatives that might yield less variation in engineering demand parameter predictions for the four structural systems identified above. Task SPP-3 will document the appropriate statistical measures by which correlations between intensity measures and engineering demand parameters can be quantified. This task will provide and document the technical basis for the intensity measures recommended for use in building performance assessment. 4. characterization of ground motion for analysis. evaluate those that are efficient at predicting engineering demand parameter values. One purpose of this task is to evaluate whether alternative intensity measure definitions are warranted and to recommend specific ways of characterizing ground motion.3 Identify Intensity Measures (SPP-3) Task SPP-3 will identify earthquake hazard intensity measures. An internal report will be prepared and will recommend specific intensity measures to be used for assessing structural and nonstructural performance. The primary rational for using alternative intensity measures is to reduce the inherent variation in predicted values of engineering demand parameters for analyses performed using different ground motions scaled to the same intensity measure value. and methods of selecting and scaling ground motion records to conform to various values of the intensity measures. Current practice is to use either peak ground acceleration or spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of building vibration as the primary intensity measure for performance assessment and design. with the ultimate goal of developing two or three alternative intensity measures to be considered for possible implementation. The report will also address considerations of reliability in predicting the engineering demand parameters using various methods of analyses (see Task SPP-4) and how well the values of the engineering demand parameters can be related to structural and nonstructural damage states (Tasks SPP-5 and NPP-7). some intensity measures are known to have better efficiency in response prediction in either the elastic or inelastic range 38 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 .A summary report will be prepared describing the engineering demand parameters recommended for the performance assessment of components and elements of the selected framing systems. and develop recommendations for selection of appropriate ground motion representations for use in analysis. It is likely that the intensity measures may be distinguished on the basis of the performance level. that is.1. as a function of the intensity measures. and detailed reasons for their selection.

or nearly so. Analysis FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 39 . These analysis methods will be used by design professionals to develop structural response functions that predict the values of engineering demand parameters for various levels of intensity measures and predict input demands for nonstructural components and systems suspended by or within the structure. when significant.. one or more seismic analysis methodologies that will be included in the analysis guidelines will be identified. Emphasis will be placed on the use of inelastic response-history procedures with a rigorous treatment of uncertainties.4 Prepare Analysis Guidelines (SPP-4) Task SPP-4 will develop and document one or more structural analysis methods for use in structural performance assessment and prediction of demands on nonstructural components and elements. for all feasible levels of ground motion intensity. Other analysis procedures will be examined.1. may be found acceptable for application to structures within limited ranges of configuration and structural period. Efforts will be made to coordinate with and take advantage of work relevant work in this area concurrently being performed by the U. This task will include consideration of soil-structure interaction and a statistical treatment of the uncertainties in earthquake hazards and structural response. near-collapse) will be documented.of behavior.g. In Task SPP-4. Analysis guidelines will consider how soil-foundation-structure-interaction (SFSI) effects should be considered. Limitations of the selected analysis methods for representing extreme nonlinear behavior (e. and a specialist in uncertainty evaluation. S. or for single degree-of-freedom structures where sufficient statistical data are available to characterize inelastic response based on elastic analysis and the uncertainty associated with elastic predictions of demands is well-defined. 4. Geologic Survey and the three NSF earthquake engineering research centers. a structural analysis specialist. Linear procedures would be permitted only for: those few structures that would be expected to remain elastic. An internal report will be prepared that documents the findings from this task. or a combination of these methods. either by explicit modeling of soil-foundation elements or appropriate modification of the hazard and/or input ground motions. Task SSP-3 will be performed by a project sub-team consisting of a geotechnical engineer or engineering seismologist. More traditional analysis procedures. for example nonlinear static analysis. but will be included in the guidelines only if it is apparent that the procedures are sufficiently reliable to permit practical application. but not both. The project team will operate under the direction of the Structural Performance Products Team Leader.

ETABS. How the damage measures will be integrated will depend to a large extent on how significant the damage is. which relate the probable losses in casualties. The analysis guidelines will be evaluated by application to the case study buildings developed under Task SPP-6. SAP. repair/replacement costs and occupancy interruption to damage (see also Appendix A.5 Identify Structural Damage Measures (SPP-5) Task SPP-5 will develop definitions of appropriate damage measures for the four candidate framing systems. as measured by the engineering demand parameters. The results of Task SPP-4 will be incorporated into the analysis sections of the Performance Assessment Guidelines (SPP-1). Definition of the damage measures will be coordinated with the Risk Management Products Team. which will develop procedures and models to translate the damage measures into appropriate performance (loss) metrics. Both research-oriented (e. or a combination of these for differing levels of damage. but such work will only be undertaken if bias and uncertainty factors are available from other sources. or system level. LARSA) software will be used for these studies. Task SPP-5 will result in a series of chapters on the translation of engineering demand parameters into damage measures for the various structural systems and their components. As part of the task of identifying appropriate structural damage measures. The analysis guidelines will address specific issues associated with calculating the engineering demand parameters identified in Tasks SPP-2 and SPP-7. The damage measures will be used to form functions. IDARC..guidelines will address appropriate statistical modeling of uncertainties in the earthquake hazard and structural response. OpenSees. it will be necessary to decide how performance is to be measured. and with appropriate representation of the earthquake hazard consistent with the intensity measures identified in Task SPP-3. at the component. Seismic Performance Assessment). For modest levels of damage.g. relating levels of damage to response. Both design professionals and researchers (faculty and graduate students) will contribute to the analysis/evaluation of the code-compliant buildings developed under Task SPP-6.. ranging from modest to severe. ABAQUS) and commercial (e. story. 4. for example. the main consequence of 40 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . and also to form loss functions.1. Work on simpler analysis methods will require studies to calibrate bias and uncertainty parameters against inelastic response-history methods.g.

such as are found in the western United States. Foundation systems and site effects will be included in the designs to the extent that they will significantly impact the performance evaluation. Once the designs are complete. For more severe damage levels. and (3) to provide information on the actual expected performance of representative buildings designed to the present building code. These models will then be subjected to the performance assessment procedure. who will take the lead in assessing the performance of the case study buildings. The goals of this task are threefold: (1) to test-drive the Performance Assessment Methodology and tools developed in Tasks SPP-1 through SPP-5 and SPP-7. One case study building will be developed for each of the four candidate structural systems. the Risk Management Products Team will direct the use of the developing Performance Assessment Methodology to evaluate the performance capability of the designs. which probably can be aggregated from a component level based on the repair costs and repair time. This work will be coordinated with the Nonstructural Performance Products Team and the Risk Management Products Team to include development of a generalized procedure to establish measures of building performance using values of structural and nonstructural component engineering demand parameters. Case study building designs will be prepared for regions of high seismicity. (2) to serve as example applications in the eventual seismic Performance Assessment Guidelines. This task will be performed in coordination with the Nonstructural Performance Products Team. and the Risk Management Products Team. 4. 2003). Each of the analysis methods presented in the Performance Assessment Guidelines will be used to evaluate the code-based designs.1. Initial designs will follow the requirements of 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulation of Buildings and other Structures (BSSC. These evaluations will likely be repeated several times over the course of the project as the assessment methodology is developed and FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 41 . more global descriptions of damage will probably be required. Graduate students will be involved with this activity. who will populate the model buildings with nonstructural systems and components. Procedures for transformation of the quantitative engineering demand parameters into the selected damage measures will be developed.damage will likely be the need for repairs.6 Structural Input to Model Building Studies (SPP-6) Task SPP-6 will design structural systems for a series of case study buildings using current building code provisions. which impair the safety of the occupants.

or displacement spectra (or alternative measures of floor motions that correlate with damage to nonstructural components). 42 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . the analysis methods of Task SPP-4 will be developed so that demands (measured in terms of the selected nonstructural engineering demand parameters) on nonstructural components can be established as a function of intensity measure. velocity. to confirm the workability and completeness of the methodology. These data are termed nonstructural engineering demand parameters. Nonstructural engineering demand parameters can generally be classified as those that are critical to the performance of deformation-sensitive and motion-sensitive components. the intensity measure selection in Task SPP-3. Deformation-sensitive components include glazing.7 Develop Procedures for Input to Nonstructural Evaluation (SPP-7) Task SPP-7 will develop procedures for deriving the necessary data for evaluation of the performance of nonstructural components and systems from analysis of the structural system’s response.improved. Task SPP-7 will be undertaken in coordination with the Nonstructural Performance Products Team. as filtered through the structural system. The task is scheduled early in the Phase 1 5year program. Identifying nonstructural engineering demand parameters will help guide the development of analysis methods in Task SPP-4. During Task SPP-7.1. A typical engineering demand parameter for deformation-sensitive components is interstory drift. Nonstructural engineering demand parameters for motion-critical components can include floor acceleration. Discussions will also address the issue of what nonstructural components will influence the structural response. and the benchmark studies in Task SPP-6. as it is critical to identify appropriate engineering demand parameters in order to coordinate activities between the Structural Performance Products and Nonstructural Performance Products Teams. which will crack when laterally deformed. and to ensure that it can be implemented by design professionals. and therefore need to be modeled in the structural analysis. Task SPP-7 will include one or more meetings to reach consensus between the Nonstructural Performance Products and Structural Performance Products Teams as to what engineering demand parameters are required from the structural analysis to evaluate nonstructural components and building contents. which under certain levels of lateral drift will break and fall out of its framing. and partitions. 4.

Under Task SPP-8. two structural design engineers.1.2 Phase 1 Nonstructural Performance Products Tasks The goal of the Nonstructural Performance Products tasks is to develop a practical and reliable generalized methodology for assessing the performance of nonstructural components and systems in buildings. two researchers with experience in the investigation of the performance of nonstructural components. Identifying preferred approaches to employing structural analysis to predict response as a function of intensity and nonstructural engineering demand parameters. • • • Work on the Nonstructural Performance Products tasks will be performed in parallel and in coordination with the Risk Management Products and Structural Performance Products tasks. a practicing architect. the Structural Performance Products Team will also support the Risk Management Products Team in developing standard or default loss functions for typical structures comprising the four candidate structural systems. repair/replacement costs. 4. the Structural Performance Products Team will consult with and provide support to the Risk Management Products Team as it develops standardized procedures for deriving loss functions for structural components and systems as a function of the damage measures.4.8 Develop Structural Loss Functions (SPP-8) Under Task SPP-8. and a building electrical engineer. The Nonstructural Performance Products Team will also use a number of engineering consultants who will perform much of the literature search and data gathering efforts. and downtime. Methods of predicting damage as a function of response or directly as a function of the input intensity measures. The team will be composed of a team leader. FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 43 . This will include: • Identifying appropriate intensity measures and nonstructural engineering demand parameters to characterize the response of these components and systems. a building mechanical engineer. Development of procedures for assessing the probable consequences of damage to nonstructural components and systems in terms of probable casualties. At least one of the researchers will have familiarity with structural reliability methods and the development of damage functions. The Nonstructural Performance Products tasks will be conducted by a Nonstructural Performance Products Team.

and contents that are vulnerable to earthquake-induced loss and that are significant to the overall performance of the building.1 Nonstructural Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines (NPP-1) The development of Performance Assessment Guidelines will be jointly performed by the three Product Development Teams. A literature search will be performed to identify past efforts to establish such an inventory and this inventory will be extended through the efforts of the Nonstructural Performance Products Team. structural sections of the guidelines. organize.2 Develop Catalog of Nonstructural Components and Systems (NPP-2) Task NPP-2 will identify. characterizing the damagability of the nonstructural components and systems.2. and estimating the demands on these nonstructural components and systems as a function of the ground shaking hazard. determining their importance to the building’s performance. Figure 4-2 Phase 1: Schedule for nonstructural performance products tasks. and on the same schedule as. The Nonstructural Performance Products Team will be responsible for developing those portions of the guidelines that relate to identifying critical nonstructural components and systems in a building. In addition to 44 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . The nonstructural sections of the guidelines will be developed in parallel with.2. 4. systems. and catalog the various types of nonstructural components. 4.Figure 4-2 presents a schedule for the Nonstructural Performance Products tasks in Phase 1.

2004b).e. and fans are parts of an HVAC3 system) and characterize the effects of damage to a single component on system functionality. ventilation. and if sufficient information is available. The deliverable for this task will be an internal project report on recommended nonstructural performance characterization and/or damage measures. loss of functionality. installation.2. The NPP-2 Task will include interviewing owners of different types of facilities to determine the effects of potential damage on facility operation and may include walk-downs of selected buildings. and maintenance of nonstructural components must be evaluated and for which detailed guidelines must be prepared. 3 Heating.looking at the importance of individual nonstructural components. the team will quantify nonstructural performance and damage measures of significance (for example. This task will require a series of meetings with individuals with expertise regarding the seismic behavior of different component types. As the inventory of nonstructural components and systems is developed.3 Identify Nonstructural Performance Measures (NPP-3) Task NPP-3 will identify appropriate measures of nonstructural performance. Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment (VISCMA. identify the weak links with regard to overall building performance. The team will then identify the nonstructural systems that are typically present in various building occupancies. crack widths. This task will also support the eventual development of performance-based seismic design guidelines. air-conditioning 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 45 FEMA 445 . The overall goal in this task is to identify the performance characterizations or damage measurements so that the evaluation and design methodologies developed in later tasks can be eventually targeted to definitive goals. breakage.). the team will identify the detail with which issues of design. leakage rates. chillers. 2004a) and Installing Seismic Restraints for Piping and Ducts (VISCMA. The team will take advantage of work published in Installing Seismic Restraints for Mechanical Equipment (VISCMA. 4. The team will make judgments as to the significance of the various components and systems to overall building performance in order to trim the list of components to a manageable number. tipping. These experts will assist in cataloging different modes of behavior of the various component types. etc. 2002). Working with the performance definitions developed in the Structural Performance Products tasks. pumps. Task NPP-2 will evaluate how components fit together to form systems (i. Task NPP-2 will culminate with the development of an internal project report on identifying nonstructural components of significance and a scoping report on the issues to be evaluated in the overall project.

Much of this data has not yet been assembled into useful. the input engineering demand parameters must be generated by structural analysis. interstory drifts.g. Existing databases may be available from public agencies.2.4. cumulative dissipated energy demands. individual equipment and component vendors. ductility demands. These input engineering demand parameters may include floor accelerations. review and evaluate these suggestions. Canada). There might also be a substantial body of data available in the public domain in the form of reports on earthquake damage investigations. 4. A literature search will be performed to identify the input engineering demand parameters that have been suggested as appropriate for this purpose by various researchers and engineers. searchable databases. The Nonstructural Performance Products Team will compile these past recommendations into a comprehensive list. including seismic 46 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . and extend the assignment of engineering demand parameters to each of the components and systems present in the inventory using engineering judgment. researchers. An important part of Task NPP-5 is developing of a comprehensive electronic database of building nonstructural components. Such databases have been developed in the past by a number of groups including the Seismic Qualification Utilities Group. coordinate it with the inventory developed in Task NPP1.. the Electric Power Research Institute. the Department of Energy. floor response spectra. or other similar parameters. For nonstructural components mounted directly at grade. and from test programs conducted in other countries (e. The product of Task NPP-4 will be an internal project report recommending the most appropriate input engineering demand parameters to be used for the performance assessment of various nonstructural components and systems. these input engineering demand parameters are actually ground motion intensity measures and may be the same intensity measures used for Structural Performance Assessment. For nonstructural components and systems mounted within or suspended on the structure. proprietary sources. and others.5 Develop Performance Database (NPP-5) Task NPP-5 will identify and obtain access to existing databases of seismic fragility data for nonstructural components. standardized floor response time histories.4 Identify Input Engineering Demand Parameters (NPP-4) Task NPP-4 will identify the input engineering demand parameters that are most appropriate for use in predicting the performance of various nonstructural components and systems. Appropriate input engineering demand parameters may be different for the several types of nonstructural components.2.

sanitized proprietary data. and locations within buildings. This data will be incorporated into the Performance Assessment Guidelines under Task NPP-1. experience data. It will be organized using the inventory catalog developed in Task NPP-1 and will include component description. however. Task NPP-6 might include developing collaborative efforts between equipment buyers and equipment manufacturers. standardized testing protocols and certification procedures will be developed for shake table testing. For such components. Flexible nonstructural components. actual recorded motions.2. The Nonstructural Performance Products Team will identify possible sources of funding for extensive testing. building types and usage. seismic qualification data. insurers.6 Develop Nonstructural Performance Evaluation Protocols (NPP-6) Given the many types of nonstructural components for which performance characteristics must be determined to permit practical implementation of performance-based design. These sources will include equipment manufacturers.7 Simplify Nonstructural Engineering Demand Parameters (NPP-7) Nonstructural components that are essentially rigid will experience the same motions as the ground or structure to which they are attached. 4. it is imperative that suppliers of these components be encouraged to develop the necessary performance data. owners.2. and observed performance. 4. design capacities. uncertainty statistics regarding component fragility will be included in the database. To ensure that the performance data developed by these individual manufacturers and suppliers are consistent and are useful in the performance assessment and design processes. and government agencies. will respond dynamically to the shaking at their point of attachments and may either amplify or attenuate the motions FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 47 . the shaking at the attachment point can be used directly to estimate the level of damage sustained by the component. Task NPP-6 will produce an internal project report that recommends standardized performance testing and certification procedures for nonstructural components. cyclic drift testing and component response testing. The NPP Team will develop a consensus on the technical description of testing protocols and will develop a means of obtaining certification of tested equipment for various seismic regions. Where possible.fragility data. The same data organization can be used as the basis for archiving data on the performance of nonstructural components collected following future earthquakes.

Procedures will be developed for each significant type of nonstructural component that is amenable to analysis. This Task NPP-8 includes developing estimates of uncertainty associated with these damage measures. onset of leaking. it is not practical to require such analyses except for a few. 48 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . the Nonstructural Performance Products Team will develop approximate. a dynamic analysis of the component or system of components is necessary to determine engineering demand parameters and levels of damage. For example. and without performing analysis of the system. the relationships of input engineering demand parameters to performance measures will be evaluated. given the large number of components present in a building of even moderate size. Procedures will also be developed to determine generic response engineering demand parameters for a given set of input engineering demand parameters. rigid components and those components that are purely drift-sensitive) there will be a direct relationship between the input engineering demand parameters and the damage measure. given input engineering demand parameters such as relative anchor displacements or floor spectra. The critical response engineering demand parameters will be identified for significant components. the procedures should permit estimates of the stresses or strains in a particular piping system given just the input engineering demand parameters. For example. very important systems or components. failure of anchor bolts.2. and initial collapse of suspended ceilings.8 Develop Procedures for Computing Nonstructural Damage (NPP-8) Procedures will be developed in Task NPP-8 to convert the response engineering demand parameters for nonstructural components into damage measures.transmitted to them. It is likely that for many nonstructural components (for example. Included in Task NPP-7 is development of estimates of uncertainty associated with determining the response engineering demand parameters for a given set of input without performing analysis. This effort is primarily intended for distributed systems where it is difficult. Also as a part of this effort. given a set of input engineering demand parameters. among others. for a piping system it may be necessary to know the stress or strain in individual piping connections. However. Under Task NPP-7. simplified procedures to estimate the response parameters for flexible nonstructural components. to determine the response engineering demand parameters. To properly characterize the response and performance of such components. 4. Damage measures could include loss of functionality. without significant calculations.

Under Task SPP-6.For other nonstructural components. each consisting of one of the four candidate structural systems. to develop projections of loss. as they are developed. using the structural performance assessment procedures. the Structural Performance Products Team will develop a series of case study building structures. 4.g.2. The first type will be a series of detailed technical tasks related to developing mathematical procedures for integrating and aggregating the hazard. the Nonstructural Performance Products Team will provide consultation and support to the Risk Management Products Team in developing procedures for constructing loss functions for nonstructural components and systems in buildings. a piping system). 4.9 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions (NPP-9) NPP-9. 4. per Task NPP-7. designed for a high seismicity site using the design criteria of FEMA 450.2.3 Phase 1 Risk Management Products Tasks The Risk Management Products (RMP) tasks are divided into two basic types. In Task NPP-10. The Nonstructural Performance Products Team will also support the Risk Management Products Team in developing standard or default loss functions for buildings of typical occupancies. requiring an intermediate step of analysis. The Structural Performance Products and Nonstructural Performance Products efforts will result in: FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 49 .10 Nonstructural Input to Model Building Studies (NPP-10) Under Task NPP-10. there may be only an indirect relationship (e. developed by the SPP and NPP Teams. as a means of evaluating the effectiveness and usefulness of the procedures. The deliverable for Task NPP-8 will be an interim project report recommending procedures to establish damage as a function of either intensity measure or input engineering demand parameter.. The Risk Management Products Team will then assess the performance of these buildings. the NPP Team will develop specifications of the nonstructural build-out of these structures to represent a series of different occupancies. the Nonstructural Performance Products Team will provide assistance to the Risk Management Products Team in their development of assessments of case study buildings. These procedures for completing nonstructural damage will also be incorporated into the Performance Assessment Guidelines. response and damage information.

These procedures will express loss estimates in various terms. a researcher. 50 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . Figure 4-3 is a schedule for the various tasks. The Risk Management Products Team will then develop procedures to integrate the hazard with the building response. expected loss for a given probability of occurrence. The second type of Risk Management Products tasks relates to communicating with stakeholders and decision-makers and ensuring that the means of expressing the performance outcomes of different design criteria decisions are useful to their decision-making processes. to assist with the process of loss estimation. a professional cost estimator. The Risk Management Products tasks will be performed by a technical team that includes a team leader and associate team leader. and a building regulator to assist with tasks related to communication of performance issues. each of whom will have expertise in structural reliability methods and loss estimation. which are explained in more detail in the following sections.• • • Hazard curves that relate intensity of motion to probability of occurrence. repair/replacement costs and occupancy interruption time to building damage. including average annual loss. The Risk Management Products Team will work with the Structural Performance Products and Nonstructural Performance Products teams to develop derivation procedures for loss curves that relate probable casualties. and an engineer. the response with the damage and the damage with the loss curves to project performance. an architect. Damageability functions that relate the probable damage to the structure and nonstructural components and systems to the response. Response curves that relate the response of the structure and nonstructural components mounted on the structure to the hazard. a structural engineer. and maximum bounded loss for a given probability of occurrence.

4. standard loss functions will be developed for each of the four candidate structural systems. including development of loss functions and integration of the hazard. as represented by the structural damage measures in Task SPP-5.. structural response. These may apply at the level of individual components (e.3. Losses will be expressed as probable repair cost given damage. The structural damage measures will consist of descriptions of structural damage.1 Phase 1: Schedule for risk management product tasks.3.2 Develop Structural Loss Functions (RMP-2) In Task RMP-2 procedures will be developed for converting discrete descriptions of structural damage. probable interruption of occupancy time given damage. into losses. nonstructural response. The Risk Management sections of the Structural Performance Assessment Guidelines will be developed in parallel with. and probable serious injury or loss of life given damage. and structural and nonstructural damage curves with the loss curves to derive performance assessments (see also Appendix A. In addition. Seismic Performance Assessment). The Risk Management Products Team will be responsible for developing those portions of the guidelines that relate to methods of expressing performance and procedures for calculating performance.Figure 4-3 4. beam FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 51 . Develop Input to Performance Assessment Guidelines (RMP-1) The development of the Performance Assessment Guidelines will be jointly performed by the three Product Development Teams.g. and under the same schedule as the Nonstructural Performance and Structural Performance sections.

at the element level (permanent interstory drift at a level). Nonstructural damage measures will be expressed probabilistically as damage functions that relate the probability of incurring various levels of damage either to levels of ground shaking. In the intermediate term. The Risk Management Products Team will work with the Nonstructural Performance Products Team to determine how nonstructural damage 52 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . brace buckling. column spalling. Task RMP-2 will involve meetings with experts in construction. Structural damage measures will be expressed probabilistically in the form of damage functions that relate the probability of experiencing given damage as a function of the engineering demand parameters. assemblies and systems. The procedures developed will then be implemented to develop standard structural loss functions for each of the four candidate systems. Appropriate indicators of loss will be developed for casualties (deaths and injuries). and will explore alternative approaches using the case study buildings. component assembly level (rate of leakage in a sprinkler riser or percent of windows in a wall likely to be broken).. Task RMP-3 will convert the nonstructural damage measures into meaningful terms for measuring performance. as well as standardized default curves for common nonstructural components.hinging. capital loss. downtime) as a function of nonstructural damage. Task RMP-2 will focus on formulating the loss functions themselves. Task RMP-2 will begin with discussions between the Risk Management Products Team and Structural Performance Products Team as to how structural damage measures might be best formulated to provide effective and efficient indicators for eventual compilation of losses and performance. These might apply to the individual component level (broken window). Task RMP-2 will develop the procedures for converting the structural damage measures into meaningful loss terms for structural performance measurement.3. or other more global level (e. wall cracking). collapse). or system level (loss of function of an HVAC system). 4. building or component response.g. capital loss. and downtime. For example. The nonstructural damage measures are descriptions of damage to nonstructural elements of buildings.3 Develop Nonstructural Loss Functions (RMP-3) Task RMP-3 will develop standardized procedures to assess probable losses (casualties. it may be that component spalling is a better measure of repair costs than residual drift. RMP-3 will also develop general procedures for determining nonstructural loss curves.

consultation with experts in construction. FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 53 . For example. 4.4 Develop Model for Aggregating Losses (RMP-4) Task RMP-4 will develop and maintain a procedure for aggregating losses from the various structural and nonstructural components and integrating them over the hazard curve to express losses in terms of the basic performance parameters useful to stakeholders and decision-makers. The HVAC system for an entire office building. at either the component or component assembly level. Casualty indicators for nonstructural components or component assemblies might include falling hazards (lights) and/or functional hazards (smoke evacuation). which must also be considered. In the intermediate term. while for a hospital. Thus. The result will be a basic conceptual model for calculating expected losses in a building. and development of suggested strategies for the case study buildings.. These will apply strictly at the component or component assembly level. days.g. Downtime indicators are time-related (e.3. hours. This may include development of an electronic spreadsheet tool or other software to serve as the framework for performance evaluation. and downtime. capital loss. Note that this cost (and loss) does not include the implications of the overall amount of repair involved for the system or the building. as illustrated in Figure 4-4. a loss curve for a pump might consist of an expected central value and distribution of the percentage of total loss for the pump itself.measures might best be formulated for effective and efficient indication of losses and performance. For example: pipe leaks should be characterized at appropriate vertical locations in a facility since the exposure of contents to damage will be greater for leaks that occur high in the building. Task RMP-4 will be completed in conjunction with the Structural Performance Products and Nonstructural Teams Products teams. System losses and building losses will be accounted for in the loss aggregation process. Task RMP-3 will involve meetings with the Nonstructural Performance Products Team. The level of refinement of the nonstructural damage measures will vary depending on the function of the facility. months). individual zones and equipment might be assigned independent damage measures. Appropriate indicators of loss will be developed for casualties. for example. a damage measure such as fracture of a flange on input or output lines might convert to an expected loss of 40 percent of the cost to entirely replace the pump. the effort will focus on the formulation of the loss curves themselves. might be represented by a single damage measure.

Convert the engineering demand parameters into structural and nonstructural damage measures at the entire building.Figure 4-4 Loss aggregation process. 3. Incorporate nonlinear structural analysis to characterize the structural response to these ground motion representations and to develop functions that express the probable response of the structure as a function of intensity. 54 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . Utilize response spectra. component. 2. this model for aggregating losses will: 1. story. in the form of various engineering demand parameters. and ground motion records representative of these spectra. Note: PSHA = probabilistic seismic hazard analysis Specifically. scaled to various intensity levels.

assembly, and system levels, expressed both deterministically and probabilistically. 4. Convert structural and nonstructural damage measures into deterministic or probabilistic losses using loss functions based on the type of building structure and occupancy. 5. Aggregate losses (casualties, capital loss, downtime) for the building using loss relationships that depend on the functional occupancy and use of the facility. The basic model for aggregating losses will be developed and tested using the case study buildings. Task RMP-4 is supported by a series of additional tasks, related to development of the basic methodology and procedures, and which are described further below.
4.3.5 Formulate Conceptual Aggregation Procedures (RMP-5)

Task RMP-5 will develop a preliminary performance assessment model that incorporates present methods of practice and will apply the model as a working platform by which to express performance in terms of probable losses. This is a critical short-term task involving: • • • Documenting the current practices for loss estimation for individual buildings. Documenting the current research regarding loss estimation for individual buildings. Expanding the preliminary format to encompass the conceptual relationships among the critical parameters (intensity measures, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, etc.). Formulating a strategy for aggregating losses to determine building performance. Preparing an internal report for use by the project team to further expand the model.

• •

Following completion of Task RMP-5, the preliminary aggregation procedures will be applied to the case study buildings developed under other tasks. This will enable improvements in the methodology to be developed on an incremental basis.

FEMA 445

4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks

55

4.3.6

Procedure for Aggregating Local Effects to Global (RMP-6)

Task RMP-6 will develop a methodology to convert local measures of damage, for example buckled braces, cracked walls, or damaged sprinkler piping into a measure of total building loss. Interaction between individual local incidences of damage can significantly affect global loss, but the global loss is not simply the sum of losses that can be attributed to each individual element in the building, alone. As an example, the casualty rate in a building in which 10 percent of the columns have 10 percent or less of their original capacity might be relatively low if the damage is spread uniformly; or it may be relatively high if the damage is concentrated in a single floor. Also, capital losses are not simply the sum of the individual losses. Demolition and put-back costs, temporary relocation expenses, and soft costs can, in general, only be determined when the losses and performance implications are aggregated at the total building level. Consider, for example, that if a drywall partition is undamaged, it may have to be demolished and replaced, if structure behind this partition is damaged. Similarly, if both the structure and the partition are damaged, the partition need only be demolished and replaced one time. Task RMP-6 will explore these types of interdependencies and develop procedures for accounting for them in determining realistic estimates losses. A particularly challenging part of Task RMP-6 relates to restoration of service in a damaged facility and calculation of downtime. This will be highly dependent on the occupancy of the individual building and its tolerance to functioning in less than ideal circumstances. Some building occupancies will be much more tolerant of operating in damaged buildings, or buildings under repair, than will other occupancies. An office building might be able to function, albeit at a somewhat impaired level, fairly soon after incurring damage, whereas surgical and other environmentally sensitive spaces in a hospital would take longer to resume function as they are less tolerant of dust, inadequate HVAC, and other effects of damage. Minor repair to a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility could result in many months of occupancy interruption, while the facility is recertified by federal licensing authorities. Task RMP-6 will attempt to develop occupancyspecific relationships to model these tolerances.
4.3.7 Develop Loss Integration Procedures (RMP-7)

Task RMP-7 will integrate conventional economic, probabilistic, and financial procedures into the performance model to provide procedures capable of expressing performance in various formats, including annualized loss, deterministic scenario loss, and time-based hazard-related losses. Results of this task will also include explicit consideration of uncertainty and
56 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445

reliability. Task RMP-7 will develop the procedures necessary to generate losses in these formats and transform them from one form to another. In the short-term, Task RMP-7 will identify important procedures and the points at which they need to be incorporated into the overall model of Task RMP-4. The intermediate effort includes developing the basic procedures into modules within the model and testing the results. In the long-term, use of the basic procedures will be documented for implementation by practitioners. The loss integration procedures will have the capability to assess building performance in ways that are meaningful to the various stakeholders/decision-makers.
4.3.8 Identify Stakeholder Needs (RMP-8)

Task RMP-8 will continue the process of interfacing with stakeholder and decision-maker groups to understand their needs regarding consideration of building performance issues and the ways in which performance-based engineering products can be best related to their needs. Initially, Task RMP-8 will focus on identifying and initiating contact with single representatives of important stakeholder groups and engaging these individuals in ongoing participation in the performance-based design development process. At this point, four principal stakeholder categories have been identified as important groups with which to develop such interface: • • • • Owners and managers Societal and governmental interests Financial managers Design professionals, consultants, and researchers

The first stakeholder category, owners and managers, are responsible for commissioning building design and construction, acquiring, maintaining and/or operating buildings and facilities. They make decisions about catastrophic risks that lead to action (or inaction) on a relatively narrow scale. Motivations generally spring from the best interests of the specific business or institution. Within the owner/manager category, three perspectives have been identified as important for interaction: investors, institutions and industry. This distinction between these categories reflects the assumption that different stakeholder groups characteristically have different motivations and criteria for decisions relative to catastrophic hazard mitigation. It is important to capture these distinctions (e.g., investment risk, operational risks, and market risks).
FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 57

and types of criteria used by the three groups (e.g. protect the assets and protect the community interest). The societal/governmental category is separated into three perspectives for focus groups: policy-makers. and securities packagers. and special interest and advocacy groups. Awareness of performance-based design must be expanded to include input from both technical development personnel and those who implement performance-based design. The owner/manager and the societal/governmental stakeholder categories have a direct stake in decisions about risks associated with buildings (e.g. These individuals view catastrophic risk in a different context than do owners/managers. This reflects the different levels of sophistication.” focused on the problem one building at a time. which in turn may impact how they characterize the risk and performance issues. consultants. Their decisions relate primarily to whether or not to assume risk associated with buildings and at what compensation level. The design and consulting communities are the conduits through which performance-based design will be implemented.. The third stakeholder category is primarily financial in nature. legislation and administration.. rather than in protection of people or owned assets. and special interest and advocacy groups “speak” for the interested and affected public). The development of performance-based design capability has advanced primarily within this group.The second stakeholder category includes those who represent broader societal and governmental interests. Their focus is on public safety and the impact of catastrophes on local/regional/national economies. and securities packagers) represent different views with respect to when and how the financial decisions are made. Financial stakeholders. insurers. 58 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks FEMA 445 . regulators are considered more as “enforcers. yet many are not familiar or conversant in this field. Their decisions relate primarily to public policy. policy-makers are making broadly applicable decisions for the community. scope of decision-making and problem-solving ability. have an indirect interest in building performance decisions made by others. and researchers. Financial stakeholders differ from the previous two categories in that the stake is indirect: the concern is the financial risk associated with the decision to finance or assume risk. regulators. insurers. however. The financial category might be represented by three focus groups: lenders. Financial stakeholders tend to use very complex statistical and mathematical tools for decision-making. The fourth category of stakeholders includes design professionals. The three groups (lenders.

These groups will meet periodically with the Risk Management Products Team and others to monitor task progress and advise on the development of the Risk Management Products. In the intermediate term.In the intermediate and longer terms. time-based objectives) for discussion of them with the various groups. In the short term.9 Develop Standard Performance Level Characterizations (RMP-9) Task RMP-9 will develop procedures to express the risks that are the consequence of structural and nonstructural design decisions into formats that are as directly useful as possible to the various stakeholder and decisionmaker groups. Group members will be selected as much as possible from relatively high level and influential candidates.g. Task RMP-8 will identify and recruit two to three additional representatives from the stakeholder groups. the Risk Management Products Team will develop written pieces to illustrate basic options (e. Task RMP-9 entails the assembly of basic information on the decision-making processes commonly used by various stakeholder groups. the RPM Team will refine the basic options into standardized recommendations based on individual stakeholder perspectives. preferred methods of expressing loss and performance will be determined. In the long term. 4. particularly as it relates to Risk Management Products Task 8.. For each of the four stakeholder groups. FEMA 445 4: Phase 1: Developing a Methodology – Technical Tasks 59 . scenario loss. Members of the Risk Management Products Team will serve as liaisons with the group representatives. Based on feedback. This will result in the development of longer term relations that will facilitate the transfer of performance-based design technology to the service and research stakeholders over time. This information will be gathered in meetings with the initial stakeholder representatives and summarized in internal written summaries. stakeholder categories will be expanded in order that Task RMP-8 activities may encounter broader perspectives. annualized loss.3.

.

Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines.Chapter 5 Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines 5. they will first need to develop preliminary designs on which to conduct a performance assessment. will be able to develop preliminary designs that are able to satisfy the desired performance objectives without extensive modification. particularly those with extensive experience in earthquakeresistant design. To do this.1 Phase 2 Objectives Chapters 3 and 4 of this report present the detailed work plan for Phase 1 of this Program Plan to develop a next-generation seismic performance assessment methodology and accompanying engineering guidelines. and enable next-generation performance-based design practice to become efficient and economical and thereby. Engineers will be able to use those guidelines immediately in implementing performance-based design of new buildings and performance-based upgrade of existing buildings. responds to this need. Some engineers. Phase 2 this Program Plan. FEMA 445 5: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines 61 . Unless further guidance is provided. by developing additional tools needed to allow wider application of the next-generation performancebased design approach. Phase 2 will address additional issues and develop guidelines necessary to: • • Assist decision-makers in selecting appropriate performance objectives for buildings of different occupancies. acceptable and implementable. Specifically. will have difficulty developing preliminary designs that will be capable or nearly capable of meeting the desired performance objectives. however. Assist design professionals in identifying appropriate strategies for structural design of buildings to achieve specific performance objectives. Other engineers. Phase 2 will use and refine the Seismic Performance Assessment methodology developed in Phase 1. some engineers may find implementation of performance-based design to be time consuming and costly in many cases. however.

including considerations of maintenance. Identify the performance consequences of various strategies for design. Work to be performed under Phase 2 can be broadly classified into the following categories: • • • • • • • Identify the key decision-making parameters and processes used by different stakeholder groups. Develop simple tools for selecting appropriate design strategies to achieve different performance objectives. Identify appropriate performance objectives for buildings of different occupancies. Develop guidelines to assist stakeholders in taking advantage of the benefits of performance-based design. and the Risk Management Products Team.• • Assist design professionals in developing efficient preliminary designs that will require relatively little iteration during the design process. Quantify the performance capability of typical buildings designed to current prescriptive building codes.2 Phase 2 of this Program Plan will develop these additional tools and capabilities. Identify the performance consequences of various quality assurance strategies. Summary of Phase 2 Product Tasks • 5. the members of the Product Development Teams will generally 62 5: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines FEMA 445 . Though some changes in personnel might be appropriate. so that the lack of consistency in current performance and the advantages of performance-based design approaches is evident. the Nonstructural Performance Products Team. Phase 2 Description of Work • 5. and construction.3 Work in each technical area will be performed by one of the three Product Development Teams organized in Phase 1: the Structural Performance Products Team. Develop simple tools to assist decision-makers in selecting appropriate performance objectives. procurement. Provide for direct prescriptive performance-based design of simple buildings to achieve different performance objectives. Develop guidelines for design professionals to assist them in implementing performance-based design.

and eras and styles of construction. and structural system types. 5.be the same as those empanelled in Phase 1. as well as the effects of different occupancies and structural characteristics. NPP-12: Identify the effectiveness of current code procedures in reducing the consequences of nonstructural performance in terms of life loss and injuries. direct repair and replacement costs and downtime in buildings of various occupancy. on life loss and injuries. direct repair and • • FEMA 445 5: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines 63 . SPP-10: Identify the effects of various structural parameters.1 Structural Performance Products Tasks Principal Phase 2 tasks to be performed by the Structural Performance Products (SPP) Team will include: • SPP-9: Identify the contributions to performance. as measured in life loss and injuries. SPP-12: Identify preferred structural strategies for upgrade of existing buildings of different eras and construction types to achieve various performance objectives in buildings of different structural systems. and damping. SPP-11: Identify preferred structural strategies for achieving various performance objectives in new buildings of different occupancy and structural systems. direct repair and replacement cost and downtime.3. occupancies. direct repair/replacement costs. as measured in life loss and injuries. and downtime of various nonstructural components and systems in buildings. strength. structural systems and eras and styles of construction.2 Principal Phase 2 tasks to be performed by the Nonstructural Performance Products team will include: • NPP-11: Identify the contribution to performance. ductility. Nonstructural Performance Products Tasks • • • • 5.3. direct repair/replacement cost. A summary of Phase 2 tasks to be performed by each of these teams is provided in the subsections that follow. of various types of structural damage for buildings of different structural systems. Detail descriptions of Phase 2 tasks are provided in Chapter 6. Different eras of construction and different design and installation criteria will be considered. NPP-13: Identify the effectiveness of various alternative design strategies for reducing life loss and injuries. including stiffness. and downtime in buildings of different occupancies. SPP-13: Prepare structural input to performance-based design guidelines for performance-based design.

RMP-12: Identify the preferred decision-making models of different types of decision-makers. NPP-15: Prepare input to performance-based design guidelines.3.replacements costs. RMP-11: Identify the key performance parameters for buildings of different occupancies. RMP-13: Develop simplified decision-making aids that will assist decision-makers to select appropriate building performance objectives. This will require that a series 64 5: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines FEMA 445 . • • • The Risk Management Products Team will play a significant role in support of the work performed by the Nonstructural Performance Products and Structural Performance Products Teams. structural systems. and eras of construction. for buildings of various occupancies and structural system types.3 Principal Phase 2 tasks to be performed by the Risk Management Products (RMP) Team will include: • • • • • RMP-10: Identify the key performance concerns of different stakeholder communities and types of decision-makers. RMP-14: Explore the performance capability of typical buildings designed in accordance with current building code procedures using typical contemporary procurement. construction and quality assurance practices and comparing these against the needs of various stakeholders. RMP-17: Provide input to performance-based engineering guidelines for seismic design. and eras of construction. and downtime consequences of nonstructural component and system performance in buildings of different occupancies. Risk Management Products Tasks • 5. • NPP-14: Develop preferred nonstructural design strategies for achieving various performance objectives in buildings of different occupancy types. structural systems. RMP-16: Develop guideline documents to assist various decision-maker and stakeholder groups to achieve the maximum possible benefit from performance-based design. RMP-15: Explore the performance capability of typical existing buildings designed in accordance with the standards prevalent during different eras and in different regions of the nation. Much of the work performed by these two teams will consist of exploring the effects of various design strategies on building performance capability.

Table 5-1 presents an overall estimate for Phase 2 broken down by Product Development Area. Table 5-2 presents a detailed breakdown of these costs by specific task and shows how these costs were intended to be distributed throughout the program. It is anticipated that the Risk Management Products Team will implement these performance assessments using the seismic performance assessment methodology developed in Phase 1. labor rates. and Project Steering Committee. or inflation. Detailed descriptions of Phase 2 tasks are provided in Chapter 6. internal government costs. 5. Project management and oversight will be conducted using the same procedures and the same committees. 5. and illustrated in Figure 3-1. Table 5-3 presents an estimate for the reduced scope costs for Phase 2 broken down by Product Development Area. FEMA 445 5: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines 65 .4 Phase 2 Project Management Project management will be performed under the same management structure described for Phase 1. Figure 5-1 presents an overall summary of tasks and schedule for the originally planned Phase 2 work.of model building designs be developed and their performance capability assessed with respect to the performance of both structural and nonstructural components and systems. contingent on the availability of sufficient levels of funding to enable the necessary work to be performed in the planned sequence.5 Phase 2 Projected Program Costs and Schedule Phase 2 of this Program Plan is intended to be accomplished in five years. and do not include escalation due to changes in the value of money. Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 present an overall picture of the Phase 2 reducedscope program prepared at the request of FEMA. Estimates of personnel and other costs associated with the Phase 2 tasks of this Program Plan have been developed using prevailing labor costs common to projects of this type at the time this plan was prepared. including a Project Management Committee. The budget for the reduced-scope program is approximately 50% of that for the original program. Project Technical Committee. and Table 5-4 presents a detailed breakdown of reduced-scope costs by specific tasks. The original Phase 2 total projected project costs were estimated at approximately $10 million in 2004 dollars.

66 5: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines FEMA 445 . Phase 2 begins upon completion of Phase 1.Figure 5-1 Summary of tasks and schedule for Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines.

Table 5-1

Original Projected Program Costs by Product Development Area, Phase 2: Development of Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines Product Development Area/Cost Element Cost ($1,000) $2,635 1,440 2,200 3,375 $9,650 Original Phase 2 Projected Program Costs by Task and Year ($1,000)
Task Year 1 $560 SPP Total 560 560 NPP Total 560 170 170 170 200 100 Year 2 520 50 570 100 110 50 260 80 80 80 225 0 50 RMP Total 810 475 200 515 475 200 Year 3 255 330 220 50 855 220 80 50 350 225 200 50 475 475 200 Year 4 220 220 50 490 170 50 220 200 50 250 475 200 Year 5 110 50 160 50 50 100 50 150 475 200 Total 560 775 550 550 200 2,635 560 100 330 250 200 1,440 250 250 250 200 100 450 500 200 2,200 2,375 1,000 $9,650

Structural Performance Products Nonstructural Performance Products Risk Management Products Project Management, Administration, Oversight (Review), and Other Costs (Travel, Communications, Supplies and Equipment) Total Table 5-2

SPP-9 Identify Structural Contribution to Performance SPP-10 Identify Effect of Structural Parameters SPP-11 Identify Preferred Structural Strategies for New Buildings SPP-12 Identify Preferred Structural Upgrade Strategies SPP-13 Provide Input to Design Guidelines

NPP-11 Identify Nonstructural Performance Contributions NPP-12 Identify Effectiveness of Current Practice NPP-13 Identify Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies NPP-14 Identify Preferred Strategies NPP-15 Provide Input to Design Guidelines

RMP-10 Identify Key Performance Concerns RMP-11 Identify Key Performance Parameters RMP-12 Identify Preferred Decision-Making Models RMP-13 Develop Simplified Decision Tools RMP-14 Evaluate Performance Capability of Present Codes RMP-15 Evaluate Performance Capability of Typical Existing Buildings RMP-16 Develop Stakeholder Guides RMP-17 Provide Input to Design Guidelines

Project Management, Oversight & Administration Other Direct Costs

Total $2,605 $2,020 $2,355 $1,635 $1,035

FEMA 445

5: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines

67

Table 5-3

Reduced-Scope Projected Program Costs by Product Development Area, Phase 2: Development of Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines Product Development Area/Cost Element Cost ($1,000) $1,140 650 1,070 2,140 $5,000 Reduced-Scope Phase 2 Projected Program Costs by Task and Year ($1,000)
Task Year 1 $250 SPP Total 250 250 NPP Total 250 80 80 80 80 80 RMP Total 400 250 100 Year 2 260 25 285 50 50 25 125 40 40 40 100 0 25 245 250 200 Year 3 50 130 100 25 305 100 40 25 165 100 100 25 225 250 200 Year 4 100 100 25 225 60 25 85 100 25 125 250 200 $885 Year 5 50 25 75 25 25 50 25 75 240 200 Total 250 310 230 250 100 1140 250 50 150 100 100 650 120 120 120 80 80 200 250 100 1070 1240 900

Structural Performance Products Nonstructural Performance Products Risk Management Products Project Management, Administration, Oversight (Review), and Other Costs (Travel, Communications, Supplies and Equipment) Total Table 5-4

SPP-9 Identify Structural Contribution to Performance SPP-10 Identify Effect of Structural Parameters SPP-11 Identify Preferred Structural Strategies for New Buildings SPP-12 Identify Preferred Structural Upgrade Strategies SPP-13 Provide Input to Design Guidelines

NPP-11 Identify Nonstructural Performance Contributions NPP-12 Identify Effectiveness of Current Practice NPP-13 Identify Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies NPP-14 Identify Preferred Strategies NPP-15 Provide Input to Design Guidelines

RMP-10 Identify Key Performance Concerns RMP-11 Identify Key Performance Parameters RMP-12 Identify Preferred Decision-Making Models RMP-13 Develop Simplified Decision Tools RMP-14 Evaluate Performance Capability of Present Codes RMP-15 Evaluate Performance Capability of Typical Existing Buildings RMP-16 Develop Stakeholder Guides RMP-17 Provide Input to Design Guidelines

Project Management, Oversight & Administration Other Direct Costs

Total $1,250 $1,105 $1,145

$615 $5,000

68

5: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines

FEMA 445

Chapter 6

Phase 2: Developing Performance-Based Seismic Design Procedures and Guidelines— Product Tasks

6.1

Phase 2 Structural Performance Products Tasks

The purpose of the Phase 2 Structural Performance Products tasks is to develop recommendations for selection and design of structural systems that can be effectively used to achieve a range of performance goals in new building design and existing building upgrade projects. Structural systems affect the performance of buildings—as measured in casualties, economic loss related to repair and replacement and occupancy interruption—through two primary behaviors. First, structural systems themselves are vulnerable to damage, and therefore can directly cause casualties, require repair, and result in unsafe conditions that prevent building occupancy and use. Second, structural systems transmit demands to nonstructural components and systems, in the form of accelerations and interstory drifts, in turn damaging these nonstructural building components. Design of structural systems to achieve desired performance, whether in new buildings or upgrade of existing buildings must consider both of these effects. Therefore, the Structural Performance Products Team will work closely with the Nonstructural Performance Products Team in developing appropriate strategies. Structural performance products tasks include identifying the importance of structural damage as a contributor to the basic performance metrics, and evaluating the effectiveness of various structural design strategies such as stiffening, strengthening, improving ductility, etc., to reducing building losses. Task SPP-8 will identify preferred combinations of these structural parameters to achieve desired performance goals. Tasks will culminate with development of procedures for selection of appropriate structural design strategies to achieve desired performance goals, development of preliminary design criteria that will enable designers to efficiently implement performance-based design methods, and presentation of the results of these tasks in Performance-based Design Guidelines.

FEMA 445

6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks

69

1. period. damping and ductility—have on overall building performance. This information will be used to guide later tasks that are focused on developing design strategies intended to improve the seismic performance characteristics of buildings.1.2 Identify Effect of Structural Parameters (SPP-10) Task SPP-10 will identify the effect that basic structural design parameters— that is stiffness. such as unreinforced masonry buildings and nonductile concrete frame buildings. strength. but can result in higher floor response accelerations and higher structural forces at low levels of structural response. This might reduce damage to drift-sensitive nonstructural components.Figure 6-1 presents a proposed schedule for the Phase 2 Structural Performance Product tasks. which are described in more detail in the following sections. Figure 6-1 Phase 2: Schedule for structural performance products tasks 6. Task SPP-9 will be run in parallel with Task NPP-10. Increases in structural stiffness. for example. but increase damage to acceleration-sensitive components as well as to structural components. 6. reduce interstory drift. Since it is already clear that the performance of buildings with fragile structural systems.1 Identify Structural Contribution to Performance (SPP-9) Task SPP-9 will investigate the relationship between structural performance and overall building performance. Increased strength may reduce damage to structural 70 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks FEMA 445 . and will extract data from the evaluations performed under that task to identify the extent that structural damage in modern well-designed structures affects overall building performance. will be dominated by the high potential for structural collapse and total building loss. Task SPP-9 will focus on buildings designed to modern code requirements and which have low risk of collapse.

selecting an appropriate structural upgrade or design strategy and developing a preliminary structural design.components. The effect on overall building performance. and then subjected to a series of parametric performance evaluations in which structural design parameters (e.3 Identify Preferred Structural Strategies for New Buildings (SPP-11) Task SPP-11. which are often fragile. Task SPP-12 will entail performance evaluations of a series of case-study existing buildings with a number of different upgrade strategies. will be evaluated.5 Provide Input to Design Guidelines (SPP-13) Task SPP-13 will develop structural sections of Performance-based Design Guidelines focused on developing preliminary designs of structural systems in new building construction and for existing building upgrades. 6. 6. but transmit higher floor accelerations to nonstructural components. Relationships between these various parameters and building performance will be developed for use in preliminary design to determine appropriate target values for these parameters. the upgrade systems must be sufficient to protect the existing structural systems. strength. as well as the individual performance of structural and nonstructural elements. and damping) are varied. stiffness. so that the effectiveness of these strategies on the performance of the building as a whole can be determined. 6.1. Strategies will address selection of appropriate systems.1. along with the results of Tasks SPP-9 and SPP-10.. a series of case-study buildings will be developed. In this task.1. The Seismic Performance Assessment guidelines developed under Phase 1 will be used to confirm that the FEMA 445 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks 71 .4 Identify Preferred Structural Upgrade Strategies (SPP-12) Task SPP-12 is parallel to Task SPP-11 and will develop procedures for identifying appropriate design strategies and preliminary designs for the seismic upgrade of existing buildings.g. to satisfy various performance objectives. and the preliminary design procedures will address configuration and proportioning of the system in a manner that is consistent with the selected performance objectives. The principal difference between Task SPP-12 and Task SPP-11 is that. in addition to providing protection for the new structure and the nonstructural components and systems. will be evaluated to develop procedures for identifying appropriate design strategies and preliminary design procedures for new building construction. The Performance-based Design Guidelines will include information on characterizing earthquake hazards.

and occupancy/use loss. including altering the structural system to moderate the demands on the nonstructural components and systems. There is a general. Phase 2 will undertake an extensive parametric study. One of the significant problems associated with doing this is that there is no clear understanding as to how significantly nonstructural damage contributes to casualties. 72 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks FEMA 445 . it is important to quantify the contribution of nonstructural damage to these various types of building losses. it next becomes important to develop effective strategies to improve building performance through mitigation of these losses. as described in the individual NPP Tasks outlined below. Figure 6-2 provides a projected summary schedule for these tasks. reducing the damageability of these components and systems through improved design practices. economic loss. 6. as necessary to achieve desired performance. particularly for moderate levels of shaking intensity.preliminary design is actually capable of providing the desired performance and as a tool to adjust preliminary designs. Presuming that the contribution of nonstructural damage to potential losses is significant. Before an effective strategy for mitigating potential losses due to nonstructural damage can be developed. It is not clear whether structural or nonstructural damage is most significant to occupancy interruption losses. Further. as well as the basic procedures for procuring these building components. belief that structural damage (as opposed to nonstructural damage) is the primary contributor to casualties. Similarly. Several basic approaches are hypothetically possible. but unverified. The effectiveness of each of these approaches needs to be evaluated to recommend appropriate strategies as part of the Performance-based Design Guidelines. there is a belief that nonstructural losses tend to dominate repair costs.2 Phase 2 Nonstructural Products Tasks The purpose of the Phase 2 Nonstructural Performance Products tasks is to develop recommendations for design and installation practices that can be effectively used to achieve a range of performance goals in new building design and existing building upgrade projects. which presently relies heavily on field design by the installation contractor. since these nonstructural effects are likely to be dependent on the seismicity at the building site and the type and age of building construction.

measured by estimated losses will be evaluated for a series of case study buildings considering two basic conditions for each building. including structurally fragile and structurally rugged building types. it will probably not be necessary to evaluate the performance of a large number of buildings. but which must be removed and then replaced in order to allow structural repairs to occur. Performance. structurally stiff and structurally flexible building types.. and in several seismic zones.e. not prone to damage). This is because there may be significant costs associated with the demolition and repair of nonstructural components that were not damaged. the performance of a range of structural types will be evaluated.2. and nonstructural systems that are relatively rugged. The second case consists of the same buildings. (i. but with these components being seismically rugged. and those that are relatively fragile. Rather. Identify Nonstructural Performance Contributions (NPP-11) Task NPP-11 will identify the contribution of nonstructural damage to casualties. repair costs. as represented by other types of practice.1 Phase 2: Nonstructural Performance Products task schedule. FEMA 445 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks 73 . The first condition consists of the building with nonstructural components and finishes present.Figure 6-2 6. and occupancy/use interruption times in buildings of various types and eras of construction. as represented by current practice in regions of high seismicity. The projected difference in losses between the buildings with rugged nonstructural components and those with fragile nonstructural components will indicate the extent that the nonstructural components contribute to these various performance measures. It is important to note that this same data cannot be attained by evaluating the performance of bare shell buildings and comparing it against performance of buildings that have been built out with nonstructural components. For the purposes of Task NPP-11. but with nonstructural components and systems that have damage potential that is more typical of those found in real buildings.

Evaluations will be performed for the same buildings assuming both rugged and fragile nonstructural systems and components. as well as damage-resistant systems such as seismic isolation and energy dissipation. The Risk Management Products Team will assist by performing the evaluations. the Nonstructural Performance Products Team will direct a series of evaluations of buildings of different occupancies that have different nonstructural components with different levels of susceptibility to damage.A range of performance assessments will be performed. it will be important to conduct scenario evaluations that permit examination of the relative contributions of structural and nonstructural damage at different intensity levels. Information obtained from Task NPP-12 will identify current practices that are deficient in mitigating earthquake losses and that should be changed to achieve enhanced nonstructural performance. Under Task NPP-12. Evaluation of the data will also allow the nonstructural components that contribute the most to losses to be identified. procurement. and which are representative of current design and installation practices for the various regions of seismicity.2. will also be evaluated. 6. The Nonstructural Performance Products Team will take the lead in developing the nonstructural components and systems inventories for these structures and will interpret the results of the studies to obtain data that are useful for formulation of design recommendations. and installation practices for mitigating losses related to the performance of nonstructural components and systems. Structural systems of various stiffness and strength levels. Potential losses due to nonstructural component and system performance for a variety of shaking intensities will be evaluated. in addition to performing probabilistic evaluations that consider the entire range of hazards. The Structural Performance Products Team will assist in Task NPP-11 by developing structural designs for evaluations.2 Identify Effectiveness of Current Practice (NPP-12) Task NPP-12 will determine the effectiveness of current design. as will aggregate losses obtained by summing the projected loss at each intensity level factored by the probability of that intensity occurring. The difference in predicted performance relating to robust nonstructural procedures and standard nonstructural installation practices provide data on the effectiveness of current practice in mitigating losses and improving performance. 74 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks FEMA 445 . It will be important to understand the relationship of nonstructural performance relative to structural performance at different ground motion intensity levels. Thus.

such as seismic isolation and energy dissipation. the building design team would prepare routing plans for these systems that would indicate all required support and bracing locations and details. Information developed in Task NPP-13 will lead to practical and effective recommendations for improving performance by reducing losses resulting from nonstructural performance in the Seismic Performance Assessment guidelines. specification.2. as well as others identified by the Nonstructural Performance Products Team. • • • • Task NPP-13 will include study the cost effectiveness of each of these strategies. but significantly increasing the level of inspection. procurement.4 Identify Preferred Strategies (NPP-14) Using information obtained from Task NPP-13.2. to ensure that systems and components are actually installed properly. conduit. 6. Adopting industrial-type design.These data will allow effective strategies to be developed for mitigating losses. such as piping systems. such as installation of interior partitions in a manner that can better accommodate interstory drift. and installation practices for the installation of vulnerable systems and components. Using structural systems that minimize the demands on nonstructural components and systems. rather then requiring contractors to fieldroute piping. Task NPP-14 will identify those strategies for mitigating damage to nonstructural components and FEMA 445 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks 75 . and similar items and brace them using generic support specifications. ductwork. Inspection would be at a level comparable to that required for structural system construction. identifying those nonstructural components and systems. the upgrade/replacement of which could result in significant enhancement in building performance. Using more damage-resistant details for selected components and systems. Using contemporary approaches to seismic design. 6. Under these practices. These include: • For existing buildings. similar to that provided by California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (for hospitals). and procurement of nonstructural components and systems.3 Identify Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies (NPP-13) There are several potential alternative strategies for reducing the losses that result from damage to nonstructural components and systems.

3 Phase 2 Risk Management Products Tasks The Risk Management Products tasks will: • Quantify the performance needs of various building stakeholder and decision-maker groups so that the best methods of expressing their needs can be identified. Inherent in this task is the realization that it is probably not necessary to use the same care in the installation of nonstructural components and systems in all buildings. 6. The data from Task NPP-14 will be used to formulate recommendations contained in the Performance-based Design Guidelines.2. as appropriate to achieving different performance goals in regions of different seismicity. The Performancebased Design Guidelines will be formatted to present a menu of strategies for mitigating nonstructural-related losses. For example. • • Much of the work of the Risk Management Products Team will consist of outreach to various stakeholder and decision-maker communities to determine the most important aspects of building seismic performance to them and how they prefer to conceptualize and quantify these performance 76 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks FEMA 445 . then strategies that minimize these costs would be identified based on the information obtained from Task NPP-13. 6. quality assurance. or selecting a structural system that minimizes demands on these components and systems and will consider the desired performance and seismic environment in which the building is constructed. Develop decision-making tools and guidelines for decision-makers to assist them in selecting appropriate performance objectives as the design criteria for their buildings. and maintenance of nonstructural components and systems in buildings of varying occupancies and for varying performance objectives.systems that are most appropriate for achieving various performance objectives in various regions of seismicity. installation. Explore how effective current and past building design and construction practices have been in meeting these needs.5 Provide Input to Design Guidelines (NPP-15) Task NPP-15 will develop the Performance-based Design Guidelines related to the design. procurement. but a significant contributor to economic loss relating to damage repair costs in moderate earthquakes. The guidelines will enable engineers to choose between specifying rugged installation of nonstructural components and systems. if nonstructural performance is found to be a relatively small contributor to the risk of casualties.

In performing tasks related to defining the performance capability of current and past practices.3. the Risk Management Products Team will work closely with the Structural and Nonstructural Performance Products Teams. considering the cost of mitigation. This will be followed by identified optimal or desired building performance objectives that are important to various stakeholders and decision-makers. Figure 6-3 6. and located in different seismic environments to determine the losses associated with these buildings. the Risk Management Products Team will develop a series of tools and guidelines that will assist decision-makers in selecting the appropriate performance goals for buildings of different occupancies. Figure 6-3 presents a projected schedule for these tasks. who will define the basis for consideration of performance in terms of identifying the typical structural and nonstructural environment of buildings of different eras and occupancies. Everybody lives and works in a building and therefore is at risk of personal FEMA 445 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks 77 . Finally. Another major area of work will consist of exploring how well current and past practices in building design and construction meet the desired performance goals. Identify Key Performance Concerns (RMP-10) Virtually everyone is a stakeholder in building seismic performance. These tasks are described in greater detail in the following sections. Much of this work will be done by conducting performance evaluations of different case study model buildings that represent buildings of different occupancies. constructed in different eras.issues.1 Phase 2: Schedule for Risk Management Products tasks.

injury or life loss if buildings are not adequately designed and constructed. Casualty insurers. depending on building occupancy. while declining to insure buildings with other characteristics. Earthquake damage can result in a general loss of housing. In Task RMP-10. on the seismic performance basis used to design and construct individual buildings. however. In regions of high seismicity. relatively few can have direct affect. Property casualty insurers. mortgage lenders. Mortgage lenders may similarly require that borrowers carry earthquake insurance on buildings with poor seismic performance attributes or choose not to make loans at all. as decision-makers. building owners. these groups cannot directly decide the criteria that design professionals will implement in design or upgrade of a facility. however. Despite the fact that nearly everyone’s health and welfare makes them a building seismic performance stakeholder. the Risk Management Products Team will hold a series of workshops and interviews with representatives of various decision-maker and stakeholder communities to determine the extent to which these communities have specific seismic performance concerns with buildings of different occupancies. Prospective building purchasers and tenants can affect the performance criteria selected by direct decision-makers by placing higher value in terms of purchase price and rent on properties that have superior seismic performance capability. for example. Beyond this basic safety issue. An indirect risk is disruption of a community’s infrastructure that results in a general economic decline in a region. for example. Typically. and other essential services. may offer preferential insurance premiums to buildings with certain performance characteristics. geographic region. and the likelihood that earthquakes will occur. they can apply economic incentives to the decision-makers. nearly all indirect decision-makers are sufficiently concerned with seismic performance issues to have some impact on the decisions made by the direct decision-makers. not even direct decision-makers may make conscious consideration of seismic criteria. individuals are at direct economic risk if their workplaces are damaged and their businesses unable to function. and to identify what these concerns are and the 78 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks FEMA 445 . corporations and commercial tenants. and the general public are indirect decision-makers. Building developers. In regions of moderately high seismicity. In regions of low seismicity. The amount of concern and influence these various indirect decision-makers have and exercise varies. a few indirect decision-makers (such as lenders or insurers) may affect decisions. building officials and some long-term building tenants are direct decisionmakers in that they can direct design professionals to design or upgrade buildings to meet specific performance criteria. healthcare.

Mean probability that losses would exceed a given level in a defined period of time. for example. This information will provide input to the development of Performance-Based Design Guidelines. In addition. have adopted Probable Maximum Loss as the preferred parameter for making choices on seismic performance. at a 90% probability of nonexceedance. There is no unique best set of parameters to express these risks of loss and the associated confidence in the projections that will be preferable to all decision-makers or stakeholders. Average (mean) loss per year. Probable Maximum Loss is an expression of the repair cost. for earthquake shaking with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years.2 Identify Key Performance Parameters (RMP-11) As described in Chapter 2. 6. These include: • • • Expected (median) value of the loss over a defined number of years. This information will be used to guide direct decisionmakers when making building performance decisions. direct financial loss related to damage repair and facility replacement costs and loss of occupancy or use of a building—can be expressed in a variety of formats. Some decision-makers do not like to make decisions considering uncertainty. It will also provide FEMA 445 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks 79 . and 10 percent and 90 percent confidence of nonexceedance values.strength of these concerns with regard to the community willingness to affect eventual decisions. The insurance industry generally prefers to evaluate probable losses in terms of an average annualized loss that allows them to look at the probable losses to a large portfolio of insured properties on a uniform basis. The confidence level associated with the loss projections could be explicitly stated. the Risk Management Products Team will hold a series of focused interviews with representative stakeholders and decision-makers to determine preferred parametric expressions of earthquake risk for use in making performance choices. the primary measures of performance—the risks of casualties.3. but would rather make decisions based on maximum values or expected values. Lenders. Individual corporate risk managers and building owners often prefer to view losses in terms of the likely outcome given that a specific earthquake is experienced. as an industry. depending on the needs of the individual decision-maker. it is possible to express the uncertainty associated with projection of these potential losses in a variety of formats. In this task. or the projected losses could be stated in terms of bounding conditions such as an expected value.

Generally. For these decision-makers. Many decision-makers will determine that seismic performance is not an important consideration worthy of the expenditure of funds. financial loss relating to repair and replacement of damaged buildings. given their individual circumstances and risk tolerance. and which will provide guidance to decisionmakers on how to make appropriate building performance choices when developing. or upgrading buildings.3 Identify Preferred Decision-Making Models (RMP-12) Not all decision-makers will make building performance decisions in the same way. Still other decisionmakers may determine that certain building performance outcomes will result in total ruin of their enterprise. those who determine that seismic performance is a significant issue. the selection of an appropriate level of building performance is easy—they will select the minimum that regulatory authorities will permit. and then select an optimum level of performance with respect to cost.4 Develop Simplified Decision Tools (RMP-13) The basic Seismic Performance Assessment procedures described in Chapters 2. Other decision-makers.3.3. 80 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks FEMA 445 . occupying. and occupancy interruption. the decision will involve weighing the potential costs and benefits of obtaining improved seismic performance. This information will be used to guide the development of simplified decision-making tools and the development of Stakeholder Guides. developed by the Risk Management Products Team. the Risk Management Products Team will develop simplified cost-benefit approaches that decision-makers can use to determine appropriate performance objectives for a building. 6. and 4 express performance in terms of the risk of casualties. may wish to perform a costbenefit study that weighs the benefits to be gained from design for improved building performance against the costs of designing for it. In Task RMP-12. Earthquake Risk Management: A Toolkit for Decision-Makers (EQE. The California Seismic Safety Commission published a cost-benefit risk methodology. regardless of the cost involved. given other risks and needs that they face. 1999).input into the formulation of Stakeholder Guides. the Risk Management Products Team will meet with representative decision-makers and determine the typical decision-making processes used by different types of decision-makers. 6. In Task RMP-13. and will select performance objectives that reduce the risk of such ruin to an acceptable level. while also considering other potential uses of the funds. then determining a level of investment that balances these costs and benefits. A number of simplified tools for performing such analyses have been developed. 3.

This will define the performance FEMA 445 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks 81 . In order to do this. Under Task RMP-13. The Risk Management Products Team will develop a simplified procedure to assist the decision-maker in identifying and quantifying the financial consequences of building occupancy loss so that these can be used in whatever decision-making process he or she prefers. 6. Regardless of the specific cost-benefit model selected under Task RMP-13. including risk-of-ruin decision models. It is very difficult to do this on a general basis because the financial consequences of building occupancy interruption are dependent on the circumstances of the individual building occupants. even though the expected performance is poorly defined. an important consideration will be how to convert occupancy interruption time into financial loss. and select one or more simplified models for further development and presentation in the Stakeholders Guides. it is necessary to quantify the performance of buildings designed and constructed in conformance with current building code requirements so the minimum acceptable level is clearly understood. Porter (2004) presented a simplified methodology in which a cost-benefit analysis could be made based on estimated losses for a single level of earthquake shaking. In Task RMP-14. the Risk Management Products Team will work with the Structural and Nonstructural Performance Products Teams to develop a series of representative case study buildings that represent typical structures designed and constructed in accordance with current code requirements and prevailing structural practices for various regions of seismicity and seismic use groups. Regulatory authorities typically rely on the building code to establish “acceptable” levels of building performance.3. the Risk Management Products Team will review these and other methodologies.5 Evaluate Performance Capability of Buildings Conforming to Current Codes (RMP-14) As noted earlier. many decision-makers will determine that the optimal level of seismic performance for their particular building investment is the minimum permitted by regulatory authority. decision-makers who desire the minimum legally accepted performance may still wish to have buildings designed using a performancebased approach to determine if it will permit more economical designs or designs using systems or approaches that are not specifically permitted by the codes. The Risk Management Products Team will then evaluate the performance of these case-study buildings to define the performance provided by current code requirements.that allowed cost-benefit studies to be performed with information on the probable losses incurred for two levels of earthquake shaking. In some cases.

As a result.6 Evaluate Performance Capability of Typical Existing Buildings (RMP-15) In past years. a measure of the probable repair costs for a building. Although many Probable Maximum Loss studies have been conducted of buildings. The evaluations performed on behalf of lenders typically estimate building Probable Maximum Loss. nonductile concrete frame buildings. many seismic upgrades of existing buildings have been performed for economic reasons rather than reasons of protecting life safety. This will enable decision-makers to develop rapid understanding of the probable level of risk associated with different 82 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks FEMA 445 . Task RMP-15 will provide data for the Stakeholder Guides on the approximate seismic risk associated with different types of existing buildings. these have all been conducted on behalf of private parties and are not in the public domain. other than a subjective study performed by the Applied Technology Council in the mid-1980s (ATC.3. repair cost risk. which will provide valuable information to the organizations responsible for development of building codes. Data on the likely repair costs and occupancy interruption times will be obtained for different types of buildings. In the western United States.targets that will be used for the performance-based option of designing to minimum code criteria. Risks will be expressed in terms of life risk. tiltup building without adequate wall anchorage. unreinforced masonry buildings. and occupancy interruption risk. 1985)—which does not directly apply to many types of buildings constructed in the past 20 years—there is no comprehensive basis on which to rate the likely economic losses associated with buildings of different types and eras of construction. 6. This task will also allow a critical evaluation of the adequacy of current code provisions and design and construction practices. extensive work has been performed to identify types of existing buildings that pose an unacceptable risk to life. Many building owners have consequently invested in voluntary upgrades of buildings in order to obtain more favorable mortgage loans. the Risk Management Products Team will develop Seismic Performance Assessments for a number of existing building types located in a variety of seismic environments. Lenders have commonly required seismic performance evaluations of buildings and adjusted the terms of loan agreements based on the results of these seismic assessments. In Task RMP-15. As a result of this past work. and several other types of buildings have been identified as significant risks and building code requirements and ordinances for the upgrade of these structures have been developed adopted by some communities.

At least two preliminary drafts will receive outside review. each with a different intended primary audience. This data will be compiled into a database by the Risk Management Products Team. and assist them in making appropriate seismic performance choices when entering into building design or occupancy projects. guidelines will be developed for the following decision-maker groups: • • • • • • • Building developers Corporate risk managers Mortgage lenders Property casualty insurers Institutional risk managers Homeowners Small business owners Publications will be tailored to the individual interests. The Risk Management Products Team will be responsible for developing FEMA 445 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks 83 . decision processes.8 Provide Input to Design Guidelines (RMP-17) The primary goal of Task RMP-17 is to develop Performance-based Seismic Design guidelines that will help design professionals to efficiently develop designs that will be able to meet a broad range of performance objectives. interests. 6. working under the direction of the Risk Management Products Team. It is anticipated that this task will be performed by a number of consultants around the United States. Since there are many different types of decision-makers with different needs. and levels of sophistication of the target stakeholder group. These consultants will be asked to select representative buildings in their region and to perform evaluations of these buildings. a series of publications will be prepared. Focus groups of representative stakeholders in the individual areas will be asked to review the publications in draft form and provide input as to whether the publications have the appropriate focus and how useful they are.buildings and to determine if more detailed consideration of an existing building for a given use is appropriate. On a preliminary basis.3. Final development of the Stakeholder Guides will be tailored based upon this feedback. and levels of sophistication.3..7 Develop Stakeholder Guides (RMP-16) The Stakeholder Guides will provide information to decision-makers they can use to make performance choices for buildings they develop or occupy. 6.

prepared in the fifth year. 84 6: Phase 2: Developing Procedures and Guidelines—Product Tasks FEMA 445 . Second and third drafts of the publication will be prepared in the third and fourth years of Phase 2.those portions of the Performance-based Design Guidelines that relate to the basic performance-based seismic design process. developed under Task RMP-16. selection of appropriate performance objectives for buildings. communications with decision-makers and consideration of alternative strategies. so that design professionals can work effectively with decision-makers and help them select appropriate performance goals for projects. and public review of these documents will be solicited. The final draft. The community of practicing engineering design professionals will provide significant input to of these documents. and opportunities will be provided for public input as well. and all other structural and nonstructural measures to mitigate losses. will address the public review comments obtained in prior review cycles. It is anticipated that much of the quantitative material contained in the Stakeholder Guides. During the second year of the Phase 2 Program Plan. will be included in the Performance-based Design Guidelines. this draft will be prepared for internal team coordination and planning only. and will not be released for public review.

where the event is defined by a magnitude. Appendices B and C present several approaches that have been developed on a preliminary basis. fault. This Appendix A provides a more detailed introduction to these concepts. Its primary focus is on the framework for calculating probable future building performance and expressing this performance in a flexible format to suit various decision-makers. Section 2.5. direct economic loss (repair costs). In the nextgeneration performance-based design procedures.5 of this report introduced the basic concepts behind expressing performance in this manner and the basic steps in the performance-based design and assessment process. The process begins with the selection of design criteria stated in the form of one or more performance objectives. More detailed development of these approaches will be conducted under the project described in this Program Plan. to implement these procedures. repair/replacement costs and downtime resulting from earthquake-induced damage to a building. Performance objectives are statements of the acceptable risk of incurring different levels of damage and the consequential losses that occur as a result of this damage. previously introduced in Section 1. which are still at a preliminary level of development. A. and occupancy interruption time (downtime) associated with repair or replacement of damaged building elements.Appendix A Seismic Performance Assessment The next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines will measure building performance in terms of the potential for casualties.1 Performance-Based Design Process Figure A-1 illustrates the basic performance-based design process.3 and discussed in Section 2. repair/replacement costs and downtime if a specific earthquake event occurs. rupture location and/or direction • FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 85 . These performance objectives can be stated in three different ways: • Intensity-based objectives – statements of the acceptable casualties. performance objectives are statements of the acceptable risk of incurring casualties. and possibly. repair/replacement costs and downtime in the event that the building is subjected to a specific intensity of ground shaking Scenario-based objectives – statements of the acceptable casualties.

it becomes necessary to assess the performance capability of the design to determine if it meets the selected performance objectives. within the defined time frame. considering all possible earthquake events that can occur and the probability of occurrence of each. and definition of the types and quality of various nonstructural components and systems and their locations throughout the structure. over a defined period of time. 86 A: Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . Phase 2 of this Program Plan addresses the action items necessary to develop guidelines to assist engineers in developing preliminary designs likely to meet desired performance objectives. repair/replacement costs and downtime. This includes selection of a site. Once design criteria in the form of performance objectives have been selected. and guidelines to assist design professionals with this process. specification of the building configuration and occupancy. Once performance objectives have been selected and a preliminary design developed. selection of structural systems.• Time-based objectives – statements of the acceptable probability of incurring casualties. the next step in the process is the development of a preliminary design. The following sections of this Appendix describe in some detail the basic concepts associated with the performance assessment process and some of the issues that need to be resolved during implementation of Phase 1 of this Program Plan. Detailed performance assessment procedures. Figure A-1 Performance-based design flow diagram. will be developed in Phase 1 of this Program Plan.

Computation of the expected future losses as a function of intensity.A. capital and occupancy losses as a function of structural and nonstructural damage. structural and nonstructural response. Analysis of the structure to determine its probable response and the intensity of shaking transmitted to supported nonstructural components as a function of ground shaking intensity. Determination of the probable damage to nonstructural components as a function of structural and nonstructural response. and related damage. Determination of the probable damage to the structure at various levels of response. as it will be implemented in the next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures. These steps include: • • Characterization of the ground shaking hazard.2 Performance Assessment Process Figure A-2 illustrates the individual steps in the performance assessment process. • • • • These steps are discussed in the sections that follow. Determination of the potential for casualty. Characterize Ground Shaking Hazard Perform Structural Analysis Perform Analysis of Nonstructural Systems Form Structural Response Function Form Nonstructural Response Functions Form Structural Fragility Function Form Nonstructural Fragility Functions Form Structural Damage Function Form Nonstructural Damage Functions Predict Loss as a Function of Damage Figure A-2 Performance Assessment Process FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 87 .

3 Characterization of Ground Shaking Hazard The way that ground shaking is characterized in the performance assessment process is dependent on the type of performance objective. (i. and spectral response acceleration. it is only necessary to define a specific intensity of motion that the building will be designed to resist. peak ground acceleration. a range of motion and intensities. the conditional probability that ground shaking with a peak ground acceleration exceeding 88 A: Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . The simplest form of ground shaking characterization occurs when intensity-based performance objectives are used. and the probability of occurrence of each. but rather. In order to assess the ability of a structure to meet a scenario-based or timebased performance objective.e. most current procedures for ground motion record scaling produce significant variability in predicted response when nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed. The parameter used to describe ground motion intensity is termed an intensity measure. The hazard function for a site is simply an expression of the probability that ground shaking of different intensities may be experienced at the site. there is presently a lack of consensus as to how to derive and scale ground motion records so that they appropriately match the intensity represented by a response spectrum. it is necessary not only to define a single intensity of motion. so as to minimize the variability associated with response prediction. including Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI). design procedures have used linear acceleration response spectra and parameters derived from these spectra as the basic intensity measures. An important task under Phase 1 of this Program Plan is to provide guidance on selection and scaling of records for purposes of analysis.A. in the form of a log-log plot. a magnitude-6. In this case. Linear acceleration response spectra are useful and form the basis for both present national seismic hazard maps and building code procedures. For more than 30 years. Figure A-3 is an example scenario-based hazard function for a hypothetical building site and earthquake scenario—for example. This function indicates. The hazard function can be formed on a scenario basis (considering only the occurrence of a specific magnitude earthquake on a specific fault) or on a time-period basis (considering all potential earthquakes on all known faults and the probability of occurrence of each within a defined period). This information is typically presented in the form of a hazard function.5 earthquake on a fault that has a closest distance to the site of 20 kilometers. However. Further. Rossi-Forrell Intensity. among others. scenario-based or time-based) that is being used.. intensitybased. A number of different intensity measures have been used in the past.

a 25 percent chance that it will have a value in excess of 40 percent g. Such uncertainty as to the actual value of ground shaking intensity that will occur at a site given that a scenario earthquake occurs is a result of a number of factors. plotted in a Cartesian rather than logarithmic scale. Figure A-3 Scenario-based hazard function for hypothetical building site and earthquake scenario. this hazard function indicates a 50 percent chance that the peak ground acceleration produced at this site from the scenario earthquake will have a value in excess of 20 percent g. Figure A-4 Scenario-based hazard function for site using Cartesian coordinates. As can be seen. Figure A-4 presents this same hazard function. and approximately a 5 percent chance that it will have a value in excess of 60 percent g.various levels will be experienced at the site. given that this scenario earthquake occurs. FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 89 . described below.

Time-based hazard functions appear similar to scenario-based hazard functions and are used in the same way. or the response characteristics of hilly terrain. Attenuation equations are empirically derived functions that relate various ground motion intensity measures. the type of fault mechanism. While the engineering parameters have significant correlation with the recorded data. the presence of sedimentary basins that could cause reflection of the earthquake waves. all of which can affect shaking intensity. or confidence bounds associated with the uncertainties can be expressly indicated. and it may either rupture towards or away from the site.Hazard functions are most commonly generated using attenuation equations. Additional variability is introduced by the random nature of earthquake occurrence: a fault may rupture at any point along the fault. or the probability of exceedance (or nonexceedance) in a defined period of years. and other factors. to parameters that are descriptive of the earthquake and site. an average return period. the type of soil conditions present at the site. probabilistic hazard functions indicate the total probability of exceeding different shaking intensity levels at a site over a defined period of time. When time-based performance objectives are used. rather than indicating the conditional probability of experiencing different levels of shaking intensity given that a specific scenario earthquake occurs. the direction in which the fault rupture propagates. 90 A: Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . resulting in scatter of the actual data on ground shaking intensity relative to the values predicted by the equations. Hazard function may express the probability in the form of an annual probability of exceedance (or nonexceedance). including the magnitude of the earthquake. For example. However. The attenuation equations are developed by performing regression analyses of actual strong ground motion recordings against these various parameters. Still more variability is introduced by a lack of precise knowledge about the site soil conditions. and the probability of occurrence of each scenario within a given period of time. such as peak ground acceleration. the 2004 Parkfield California earthquake occurred in an area of dense instrumentation. It can be expressed as a mean probability. usually taken as 50. they do not correlate perfectly. the distance from the rupture surface to the site. in which the uncertainty associated with the function is averaged. and demonstrated that earthquakes can have a surprising variability in ground motion intensity over short distances. ground shaking intensity is represented by hazard functions that are developed considering all potential earthquake scenarios.

or any structure. these parameters will be used to predict damage. strength. in order to assess the performance of this hypothetical structure. including member forces. If a different ground motion record is selected for the analysis and is appropriately scaled to the intensity measure. For a given structure and a given level of ground motion intensity. the 5 percent-damped. and interstory drifts that can be used as predictors of the damage sustained by the structure. • The first use of structural analysis is to predict structural damage. and all of the other modeling parameters are left unchanged. three-story. Interstory drift is selected as the demand used to predict damage. In order to illustrate this process. Prediction of the intensity of demands on nonstructural elements and systems supported by and suspended from the structure.A. deformations. and hysteretic characteristics used to model the structure as well as the specifics of the ground motion record. a nonlinear dynamic analysis of the structure is performed using this scaled record and the peak value of the interstory drift at each level is determined. In a later step of the performance assessment process. ground motion intensity must be quantified with the use of an intensity measure. including the distribution and magnitude assumed for the structure’s mass. A ground motion record that is representative of the character of shaking likely to be experienced at the site is selected and appropriately scaled so that it corresponds to a particular value of the 5 percent-damped spectral response acceleration. As previously discussed. These demands include interstory drifts. or demands. a different value for the interstory drift will FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 91 . the stiffness. The value of interstory drift predicted by the analysis depends on several factors. or nonstructural demands. damping. elastic spectral response acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure is selected as the intensity measure. Next. floor accelerations. and velocities and are termed nonstructural engineering demand parameters.4 Structural Analysis and Structural Response Functions Structural analysis serves two basic functions in the performance assessment process: • Prediction of structural response quantities. we consider the case of a hypothetical. structural analysis is performed to predict the value of one or more demands. moment-resisting steel frame structure located on an arbitrary site. These response quantities are termed engineering demand parameters. For the purpose of this illustration.

0. Figure A-5 is a probability density function representing such a distribution. Median The information presented in Figure A-5.5%. In general. If a large number of these ground motion records are used in the analysis and each is equally representative of the intensity measure and the hazard for the site. can also be represented in the form of a cumulative probability function.00% 1.50% 3.50% 4.5%. expressed as interstory drift ratio for a particular structure and ground shaking intensity.02 0. The average (mean) value is an interstory drift of about 1. each will result in somewhat different predictions of peak interstory drift. as is typical of such distributions.6%.06 0.03 0.00% 3. then the results of these various analyses will define a random distribution of interstory drift demands that can result from this particular ground motion intensity level.likely be predicted. Figure A-6 presents this same data shown in Figure A-5 as a cumulative probability function. That is.05 0.09 0.00% 0.50% 2. if this process is repeated using a number of different ground motion records.00% Interstory Drift Ratio . 92 A: Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 .00% 2.07 Probabiltiy 0. there is a 50% chance that the interstory drift resulting from any ground motion for this site corresponding to this intensity level will produce a drift less than 1.3%.01 0 0. the median value is an interstory drift of 1.50% 1. all scaled to the same value of the intensity measure. There is a 10% probability that interstory drift resulting from ground motions at this intensity level will be less than 1% and a 90% chance it will be less than 2.04 0. The distribution is somewhat skewed. which indicates the probability that interstory drift will be less than or equal to a given value.08 0. For the particular distribution illustrated in Figures A-5 and A-6.% Figure A-5 Probability distribution for structural response.

If similar analyses are performed for a range of ground motion intensities. for various spectral function. FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 93 . The figure shows the median prediction of interstory drift demand as well as interstory drift demands at 10% and 90% probabilities of exceedance.Figure A-6 Cumulative probability distribution for structural response expressed as interstory drift ratio for a particular structure and ground shaking intensity. similar to that of Figure A-5. it is possible to develop a structural response function that indicates the probable distribution of the demand. In Figure A-7. Figure A-7 Hypothetical structural response function for building. Figure A-7 illustrates a structural response function of this type. in this case interstory drift. indicating the probable range of interstory drift for different levels of first mode elastic spectral response acceleration for a hypothetical structure. that fits these data. for different levels of ground motion intensity.

the task of defining the response function. the true values are seldom. The development of efficient and practical methods of developing such response functions for routine use on engineering projects will be an important part of Phase 1 of this Program Plan. and hysteretic parameters for the structure held invariant. and there is some uncertainty as to what the precise values are. and. known.or underpredict the probable response level at a given ground motion intensity level. damping. mass. where the structural response is linear. typically lognormal.8%. the resulting structural response function for the building may either over. strength and damping—within their likely limits. it would be possible to predict the additional variation in probable interstory drift demand introduced by these uncertainties. varying the assumed values for the uncertain structural parameters—including mass. the 90% probability of exceedance interstory drift ratio is about 3. To the extent that the values for the parameters used in the analyses are inaccurate.4%.such a probability density function is overlaid on the response function at a acceleration values. stiffness. where structural response is linear and increases rapidly as ground motion intensity increases and response becomes nonlinear. As an alternative. it is possible to superimpose a probability density value of first mode spectral response acceleration of 1g. While most probable values for these parameters can be estimated with ranges of potential variation. at any spectral response acceleration level. Sa. The effect of these uncertainties will be to broaden somewhat the scatter associated with the response function and produce some non-negligible variation in predicted response even at low levels of ground motion intensity. 94 A: Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . The structural response function illustrated in Figure A-7 was developed with the stiffness. If an additional series of analyses of the structure are performed. can be a complex and time-consuming process requiring many analyses. it is possible to estimate the additional scatter introduced by the uncertainties by assuming that the variability can be represented by a standard distribution shape. For a real structure. considering these uncertainty bounds. the 10% probability of exceedance interstory drift is about 6. and by selecting a coefficient of variation based on either expert judgment or the variability observed in analysis of a limited number of standard structures. if ever. As illustrated in the figure. as if the true value of these parameters was precisely known. It can be seen that the median value of the predicted demand is an interstory drift ratio of about 5%. It can also be seen that the amount of variability in potential response is negligible at low ground motion intensity levels.

%g 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Peak Ground Accel. A. Figure A-8 is illustrative of a nonstructural component demand function that could be used to predict the response of a flexible component having a period of 0. expressed in the form of peak interstory displacement or floor acceleration. FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 95 . that is.5 second that is sensitive to acceleration.5 Formation of Nonstructural Response Functions If a nonstructural component is infinitely rigid. except that in addition to interstory drift. in-structure response acceleration at a period of 0.5 Sec. the 300% 0. other parameters that are useful to the prediction of nonstructural component response (such as in-structure response acceleration at a particular nonstructural component period) will also be used. 10% Prob.The second purpose of structural analysis is to predict the probable intensity of shaking that will be experienced by nonstructural components and systems mounted at different levels in the structure. can be used directly to predict the behavior of the component. However. In Figure A-8. Exc. nonstructural components with finite rigidity will have their own dynamic response to the motions imparted to them by the structure.5 second. These data will typically be developed and represented in a form similar to the response function illustrated in Figure A-7.5 second. -%g Median Figure A-8 90% Prob. it may be necessary to perform a structural analysis of the component to predict its response to the shaking imparted to it (in the form of nonstructural demands. In-structure Response Accel. which can then used to assess the level of damage incurred. For such components. Exc. . the shaking imparted to the component by the structure. Illustrative nonstructural component demand function for floor response acceleration at 0. such as acceleration or displacement of the component itself).

As is the case with response 96 A: Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . A.6 Evaluation of Structural Fragilities Structural fragilities are functions that indicate the probability that a structural component or system will experience damage greater (or less) than a certain level. it is necessary to convolve the data in the demand function with the ground shaking hazard function for the site. is plotted as a function of ground motion intensity.5second. This process yields a hazard function that indicates the probability of experiencing a given intensity of instructure shaking at a particular floor or roof level.%g Figure A-9 Illustrative nonstructural component response acceleration hazard curve. As with the structural response function of Figure A-7. given that the component or system experiences a certain level of response. which has been constructed by convolving the demand function of Figure A-8 with the hazard function of Figure A-3.01 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 0. In order to be useful in the performance assessment process for nonstructural components. Figure A-9 illustrates such an in-structure shaking intensity function.5 second mounted at the particular level of the hypothetical building used in this example. in the same way response functions were developed for the structure itself.1 0. as measured by the demand. The resulting in-structure shaking hazard function of Figure A-9 could be used to predict the response of nonstructural components with a fundamental period of 0. mounted at a particular level in the structure. A family of such curves for different nonstructural component periods could then be used to develop response functions for various nonstructural components. 1 Conditional Probability of Exceedance 0.acceleration experienced by a component having a natural period of vibration of 0. uncertainty and confidence bands are an integral part of such a plot. here represented by peak ground acceleration.5 Second Floor Response Acceleration .

Early research in this area used the concept of damage indices as measures of damage to structural elements and systems. fragilities are expressed as probability distributions. then restore the structure to small oscillations about its original position. including: FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 97 . two different ground motions may each produce peak interstory drift demands of 4 inches in a structure. these damage indices are specific to a particular type of structural component or structural system. Such effects are not predictable unless the precise ground motion and structural response is known. Most are of the form: ⎛ Δi DI = ⎜ ⎜Δ ⎝ u ⎞ ⎛ Ei ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ +⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ≤ 1. while the second ground motion may cycle the structure to this drift level several times and leave the structure displaced nearly to this level. rather than deterministic relationships in order to account for the variability and uncertainty inherent in the process of predicting structural damage as a function of structural response. Clearly the second motion will be more damaging to the structure than the first motion. Damage indices are non-dimensional parameters. typically having values in the range of 0 to 1 where a value of 0 would indicate no damage and a value of 1 would indicate total damage. it is first necessary to establish measures of damage. and the quantity (Ei/Eu) is a measure of cumulative damage resulting from repeated cycles of inelastic response and has most commonly been expressed in the past as a ratio of inelastic energy dissipation demand to capacity. However. but a few have been calculated on a global structural level. The variability is associated with such factors as the random nature of structural response to individual ground motion records and the inability of simple demand parameter to distinguish between this response variation and the damage it causes. These damage indices have not been widely used for several reasons. one of these ground motions may cycle the structure to this drift level one time. though the value of the demand is the same. Generally.0 ⎠ ⎝ Eu ⎠ x y (A-1) where the quantity (Δi/Δu) is the ratio of the maximum inelastic displacement or deformation demand induced in the structure (or component) by the ground shaking to the ultimate static displacement capacity of the structure. Uncertainty is introduced through such factors as lack of precise definition of material strength and construction quality. In order to form fragility functions. For example. A variety of such measures are possible. which will never be the case.functions. Most such damage indices have been developed on an element or component basis.

• • • •

They require the use of nonlinear response history analysis, a complex analysis procedure not widely used in practice. The energy component is typically a small part of the computed index, making the complexity introduced by the second term seem unjustified. There is little research available to suggest appropriate values of the Eu term. Engineers have little intuitive feel for damage indices and have difficulty relating them to an understanding of a structure’s actual performance.

A second method for assigning damage parameters used in the past was to assign a series of discrete damage states or ranges, representing progressively more severe states of damage. This is the approach taken both by presentgeneration performance-based design methodologies, such as FEMA 356, and also by loss estimation methodologies such as HAZUS. In FEMA 356, these damage states are termed the Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Collapse Prevention performance levels, with Operational representing a state of negligible damage and Collapse Prevention a state of near-complete damage. The HAZUS methodology uses damage states termed Slight, Moderate, Severe, and Complete, assigned based on the analyst’s understanding of the extent of damage to the structure as predicted by analysis. It should be possible for particular structural systems to develop relationships between either the FEMA 356 performance levels or HAZUS damage states and computed damage indices. However, it is not clear that either the damage indices, or the standard performance levels of the firstgeneration procedures, can be used efficiently to predict repair costs, time out of service, or potential life loss. A third potential method of parameterizing damage consists of a direct tracking of the condition of individual structural elements and components, on a piece-by-piece basis, coupled with measures of building-wide damage. For example, for moment-resisting steel frames, damage measures that could be used on a connection-by-connection basis include: panel zone yielding, beam plastic hinging, beam flange buckling, and welded joint fracturing. Measures of building-wide damage could include tracking of residual interstory drifts of different amounts on a story-by-story basis (e.g., 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent, etc. up to collapse). Each of these damage states would have different implications with regard to occupant safety during the earthquake, post-earthquake safety, repair effort and cost, and occupancy interruption. The consequences of each of these individual damage measures must be aggregated on a system basis, over the entire structure.

98

A: Seismic Performance Assessment

FEMA 445

Structural fragilities may be formed on either a structure-specific or structural system-specific basis. Absent a practical ability to build prototype structures, test them, and measure the amounts of damage that have occurred, fragilities must be formed on the basis of simulation or analysis, laboratory data on component performance, and expert judgment. As an example, fragilities have been constructed on a preliminary basis for moment-resisting steel frames based on data obtained from the FEMA/SAC program completed several years ago. For the purpose of this example, fragilities have been developed for the case of a regular, low-rise special moment resisting steel frame building employing reduced beam section detailing. Local damage measures relating to the condition of individual structural components are taken as initiation of beam yielding, initiation of beam flange buckling, and beam flange fracture. Building-wide damage measures, relating to the condition of the overall structure are taken as permanent interstory drifts of 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent and story collapse. Following recommendations from the FEMA/SAC project, a single demand, peak interstory drift ratio, is used as an index for each of these damage measures. Based on the FEMA/SAC study, median values of interstory drift demand at which beam flange yielding initiates is taken as 0.01 radians; at which beam flange buckling initiates as 0.02 radians; and at which beam flange fracture initiates as 0.06 radians. A best “estimate” of permanent interstory drift is 50 percent of peak interstory drift, and a best estimate of the interstory drift at which collapse initiates is 0.1 radians. Coefficients of variation associated with each of these behaviors are estimated at 0.1 for initiation of yielding, 0.2 for initiation of buckling, 0.3 for initiation of flange fractures and permanent interstory drift, and 0.5 for initiation of collapse. Figure A-10 shows a plot of fragilities for these several damage states for individual beam-column connections. Figure A-11 shows a plot of fragilities for global measures of damage for this structural system computed using the above data and assumptions. In order to construct these fragilities, it has been assumed that the distribution of failure capacities is log-normally distributed using the median values and variances described in the previous paragraphs. The fragility curves illustrated in Figures A-10 and A-11 indicate the probability that damage will be equal to or greater than that corresponding to each of the several damage states. To determine the probability that a structure will experience damage within a given state at a given level of response, it is necessary to take the difference between the probability that it initiates damage within the given state and the probability that the structure will initiate damage in the next most severe state. For example, for the
FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 99

fragility curves plotted in Figure A-10, at an interstory drift demand of 3 percent, there is essentially a 100 percent chance that beam flanges will have yielded, approximately a 95 percent chance that buckling damage will initiate in flanges, and approximately a 5 percent chance that damage will include fracturing of the beam flanges or welded connections. For this case, the probability that beam flanges will have yielded but not buckled will be the probability of yielding (100 percent) minus the probability of buckling (95 percent), or 5 percent. The probability of buckling but not fracturing will be the probability of buckling (95 percent) minus the probability of fracturing (5 percent), or 90 percent.

Figure A-10

Example fragility function for beam-column connection behavior.

Figure A-11

Example fragility function for building-wide structural behavior.

100

A: Seismic Performance Assessment

FEMA 445

an 18% chance the structure will sustain an interstory drift of 2% or greater. through structural analysis. which will be tied to several different damage states and intensity measures. and in some cases. the fragility will be a function of the response of the nonstructural component. and failure of panel connections as a function of structural interstory drift. interior partitions etc. there is a 96% probability that the structure will sustain a permanent interstory drift of 1% or greater. etc. just as would be done for the building structure itself. as measured by nonstructural demands obtained from structural analysis of the nonstructural component. loss of structural integrity. For flexible components. will be at or in excess of given damage levels. Figure A-12 is a hypothetical fragility curve for a single drift-sensitive nonstructural component (exterior curtain walls). through laboratory testing programs. A. In order to develop fragility functions for such systems. Damage states that may be meaningful for nonstructural components and systems could include loss of function. In general. and toppling. as well as others. This fragility curve shows the probability of experiencing various damage states including: breakage of glass. it will be necessary to construct logic trees to identify the effect of the failure of single components and combinations of FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 101 ..7 Development of Nonstructural Fragilities Nonstructural fragilities serve the same purpose as structural fragilities. building lighting. fire sprinkler systems.Similarly. fallout of glass. The fragilities shown in Figure A-12 are illustrative only and are not representative of real data. such as suspended ceilings. except that they indicate the probability that nonstructural components or systems. it is necessary to consider the inter-relationships between the components that comprise the system and understand how failures of individual components and combinations of components affect system performance. each class of nonstructural component or system. and about a 3% chance of collapse. approximately a 5% chance of a permanent interstory drift of 3% or greater. These can be determined through collection of earthquake performance data on damage sustained by actual installations. data processing systems. In addition to fragility functions for nonstructural components. such as interstory drift or peak floor acceleration. will have different fragility functions. at a peak interstory drift demand of 3%. the fragility can be formulated as a direct function of a structural demand. it is also necessary to develop fragility functions for nonstructural systems such as fire sprinklers. manufacturing systems. For rigid components. rather than structural components or systems. loss of leaktightness. Typically. HVAC systems.

Alternatively. the efficiency with which the design professionals and contractors operate. the speed with which city and/or county building 102 A: Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . as a function of the damage states. and/or hours of lost service or occupancy (downtime). at various levels of intensity. and for the system itself can be calculated. Loss functions tend to incorporate significant uncertainty as compared with hazard.8 Evaluation of Structural and Nonstructural Loss Functions Loss functions indicate the probability of incurring various levels of loss. and fragility functions. and estimating the losses associated with this damage. These include the owner’s ability to act rapidly in retaining the necessary design professionals and construction contractors to effect repairs. Loss functions are expressed in parameters such as casualties. it is possible to determine probability distributions of the possible losses. By varying the assumptions. allowing a system fragility to be developed. This is because they are highly dependent on human factors. or exploring the level of uncertainty associated with the assumptions inherent in these estimates. the failure probability for the individual components. it may be possible to construct loss functions directly from historical earthquake data. given that a structural or nonstructural component or system is damaged to a given level. response. if available. A. for combinations of components. direct economic loss (repair costs). Figure A-12 Hypothetical fragility curve for exterior cladding. Loss functions can be constructed for a given building or class of buildings by postulating damage to the structure (or nonstructural component/system) that is representative of a damage level for which there is an available fragility function.components on system operability and function. Then.

2 or fewer fatalities per 1. and an 80% chance the repair cost will be $17. Figure A-14 is a hypothetical loss curve for fatalities in an office building.000 or less. there is roughly a 20% chance that repair cost will be $1. a 50% chance the repair cost will be $5.departments approve proposed repair programs.000 square feet of floor area and roughly an 80% chance of one or fewer fatalities per 1.000 square feet of floor area in the story.400 or less. beam flange buckling. It shows a 20% chance of 0. This variability in the potential repair cost is a result of such factors as the type of ceiling present.000 square feet of floor area. given that a story collapse occurs. Obviously. the type of fire-resistive materials present. and the efficiency of the contractor in making repairs. the amount of ductwork and other utilities that restrict access to the damaged framing.000 or less. For example. Figure A-13 Hypothetical loss curve for repair cost of damaged beam-column connections. Figure A-13 is a hypothetical loss curve that indicates the probable repair cost for a single beam-column connection in a moment-resisting steel frame structure if the connection is damaged to any of the levels indicated in Figure A-10—that is. Figure A-13 shows that if a connection is damaged to an extent that the welded beam flange to column flange fractures. The data in Figure A-13 are based on the estimated cost of repairing moment-resisting steel frames developed during the FEMA/SAC program. This variability may be attributed to the fact that the number of people present in a building varies with the time of day and day of the week and also that collapse of a story can be either partial or total. and the willingness of people to occupy the building during repair—among other factors. loss curves of this type are highly dependent on the type of building occupancy. a 50% chance of 0. beam flange yielding. or beam flange fracturing.5 or fewer fatalities per 1. FEMA 445 A: Seismic Performance Assessment 103 .

it becomes possible to characterize building performance. can be derived with the use of the hazard. in a number of different ways. building performance objectives. some may wish to know this information on an upper bound or “probable maximum” basis. given that a certain magnitude earthquake occurs. and loss functions. For example. Many stakeholders will wish to deal with performance and risk information on a scenario basis. response. Each of these.9 Predicting Loss as a Function of Damage Given the hazard functions for appropriate intensity measures. Loss curves (not shown here) for various nonstructural components and systems could be developed in a manner similar to those indicated in Figures A-13 and A-14. response curves for the structure and flexible nonstructural components. and thereby. Appendices B and C present an example application illustrating two different potential methods of illustrating these procedures to derive such performance assessments. while others will want to know a “best estimate” of the probable losses. given the scenario. they may wish to know how much loss they can expect. fragility. given collapse. 104 A: Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . Within this group of stakeholders/decision-makers. fragility curves for the structure and its nonstructural components. and loss curves for each of these. Still others may wish to know the probability in a single year or number of years that losses of a given size will be experienced.Figure A-14 Hypothetical loss curve for fatalities. and other means of expressing loss. A.

to calculate the probable performance of a building using Monte Carlo solution techniques. although not illustrated by example in this report. structural properties. the probability of damage given response and the probability of loss given damage. The advantage of the Monte Carlo solution technique is that it permits a confidence level. however. damage and loss functions are represented as mathematical expressions. such as lognormal distributions with defined median value and variance. require a large number of computations. a process of numerical integration is used to calculate expected losses as the probability of response (engineering demand parameter) given a level of shaking intensity (intensity measure). summed over all possible intensity levels. damage. to be directly associated with the performance assessment. and loss.Appendix B Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment Using Numerical Integration Techniques This Appendix illustrates the application of the performance assessment process described in Appendix A. This results in a statistical distribution for the expected loss at varying intensity levels. other than the mean. Note that for this simple illustrative example. In this illustrative example. If the various intensity. FEMA 445 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment 105 . a large number of simulations are performed. they could be and should be treated in an identical manner as the structural fragilities and losses illustrated here. However. fragility and loss function probabilities previously discussed and calculating expected loss in each case. can be incorporated into the next generation performance-based assessment and design guidelines. In this approach. in practice. or perhaps combinations of these approaches. Any of these approaches. response. nonstructural fragilities and losses are neglected. It is also possible. considering the probability of each intensity level. Appendix C presents an example illustration of the closed-form approach to solution. it is possible to derive a closed-form solution for these various integrations that can the be used to calculate probable losses directly. response. It does. varying assumptions as to ground motion. This application estimates potential future losses for a scenario earthquake for a hypothetical building. consistent with the hazard.

reflecting the aleatory uncertainty (randomness) associated with prediction of the probability of experiencing ground motion of different intensities. one can read that there is less than a 10% chance that the peak ground acceleration resulting from an event with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years would be less than 0. there are 19. values with a 10% confidence level (i. contiguous moment-resisting frames on each side of the structure. one can read that there is a 50% chance that the ground motion resulting from an event with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years would produce a peak ground acceleration of 0. 90% chance of being exceeded) and values with a 90% confidence level (i.e.In this example. For the purposes of this example. such as first mode elastic spectral response acceleration could also have been used.42g or less.. Three curves are shown on the figure representing median values. a horizontal line is drawn across the hazard curve at an annual probability of exceedance of 0. having bays that are 28 feet square and three. the mean scenario repair cost is calculated for a momentresisting steel frame building. Where this horizontal line intersects the 10% confidence level curve.0021.e. It indicates the annual probability of exceeding various levels of ground shaking intensity. expressed in terms of peak ground acceleration. 58.0021. At the 90% confidence level. 10% chance of being exceeded). In Figure B-1. is the hazard curve for the site of the hypothetical building. 106 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . it is possible to estimate the peak ground acceleration associated with any confidence level for this 10%-50 year scenario event.22g. Figure B-1. for a scenario event having a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years. it has been assumed that the response is identical in each direction and in each of the three stories and thus the probability of being damaged to the various states is the same for each story and in each principal direction of the building. Table B-1 is such a tabulation of these peak ground accelerations at confidence intervals of 5%. or an annual probability of exceedance of 0. This figure expresses ground shaking intensity in terms of peak ground acceleration however other intensity measures.800 square feet total in the building and 108 individual beam-column connections in the structure. Thus. At the median curve. one can read that there is a 90% chance that the scenario event with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years would produce ground motion with a peak ground acceleration less than or equal to 0. By interpolation.80g. The building is a three-story structure with a floor plate that is 140 foot long on each side.600 square feet per floor level. representing the scenario event.

71 0.40 0.45 0.30 0. This response curve is derived by performing structural analyses for a number of ground motions and ground motion intensity levels.55 Confidence Level1 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% pga – g 0.Figure B-1 Hazard Curve with intensity at 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years indicated Peak Ground Acceleration for 10%/50 Year Event.22 0.33 0.80 0.18 0. at Various Confidence Levels pga . FEMA 445 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment 107 . The confidence level represents the probability that the true value is less than or equal to the stated value.42 0.28 0. Figure B-2 is a response curve for the hypothetical structure.35 Confidence Level1 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% pga – g 0.59 0.65 0.37 0.96 Table B-1 Confidence Level1 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 1 Confidence level is an expression of uncertainty with regard to the true value of a random variable. as described in Appendix A.25 0. indicating the probability of experiencing various levels of interstory drift as a function of the peak ground acceleration experienced by the structure.48 0.g 0.51 0.

% 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. 108 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . the level of peak ground acceleration expected for the scenario event being analyzed.6 0.4 0. given that the scenario earthquake event occurs. it is possible to enter Figure B-2 and determine the probability that the hypothetical structure will be excited to various levels of peak interstory drift.2 1.5 inches or less.Entering Figure B-2 at a specific peak ground acceleration it is possible to determine the likelihood of experiencing a given level of interstory drift. Level Figure B-2 Response curve for hypothetical structure Table B-1 described above shows at varying levels of confidence.2 0. there is a 10% confidence that interstory drift will be 3. each 10% wide are defined.8 1 Peak Ground Acceleration .4 Median 90% Conf. In order to perform the integration to determine probable loss. which indicates the distribution of drift response for ground shaking having a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years. a 50% confidence that it will be less than or equal to 4.8g. This exercise has been done. at a peak ground acceleration of 0. For each of the pga values indicated in Table B-2. Table B-2 presents this same data in a somewhat different format.7 inches. and is shown in Table B-3. considering uncertainty in both intensity and structural response.g 10% Conf.8 inches and a 90% confidence that it will not exceed 6. a central value of the confidence and the central value of the pga is indicated. it can be said that each of the pga values indicated in the third column of Table B-2 has a 10% chance of occurrence. Level 1. In Table B-2 a series of confidence bands. For each 10% confidence band. For example. Interstory Drift .

40 0.58 6.78 2.57 2.68 4.51 0.91 2.20 2.93 1.in 0.50 1.97 8.50 2.24 4.73 0.04 1.20 1.79 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 11 Col 12 Col 13 Confidence Median Interval for pga pga g 0%-10% 10%-20% 20%-30% 30%-40% 40%-50% 50%-60% 60%-70% 70%-80% 80%-90% 90%-100% 0. Columns 1 and 3 are identical to the entries in Table B-2.91 Each row in Table B-3 represents a 10% confidence interval with regard to evaluation of intensity (peak ground acceleration).81 3.19 0.47 1.15 1.70 1.80 1.82 2.51 1.84 2.59 50-60% 0.57 7.65 10-20% 0.88 3.45 0.99 1.19 1.99 2.02 2.38 1.30 0.258 0.81 30-40% 0.80 6.59 0.85 1.38 1.17 2.70 1.47 1.91 6.35 5.26 3.36 1.93 2.26 1.93 2.21 40-50% 0.93 80-90% 90-100% 1.06 4.35 0.02 1.97 3.99 60-70% 1.54 3.75 1.72 3.51 0.60 1.64 3.57 1.92 2. Column 3 of Table B3 tabulates the median estimate of drift response.19 2.55 2.71 9.28 7.08 1.96 1.30 0.05 2.30 1.90 1.23 1.08 5.42 70-80% 1.47 4.56 1.71 0.75 4.60 1.55 1.40 0.04 2.90 3.26 2. These are calculated using the median values of column 3 and coefficients of variation obtained from structural analyses of FEMA 445 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment 109 .71 0.77 2.96 Drift Demand at Indicated Confidence Level in Hazard and Response 0-10% 0.53 2.35 20-30% 0.86 1. evaluated at each of the mid-range ground motion intensities indicated in column 2.06 2.86 3.47 2.18 0.22 2.34 3. Columns 4 through 13 indicate the midrange values of the interstory drift response evaluated for 10 different response confidence intervals.03 6.35 0.36 1.03 2.33 5. Columns 1 and 2.65 1.96 Confidence Range 0-10% 10%-20% 20%-30% 30%-40% 40%-50% 50%-60% 60%-70% 70%-80% 80%-90% 90%-100% Table B-3 Col 1 Distribution of Interstory Drift for the 10%/50 – Year Event Col 2 Col 3 Median drift .59 0.g 0.18 1.63 3.77 4.76 2.Table B-2 Central Value of PGA for Scenario Event within Confidence Bands Mid Range Value of Confidence 5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% 95% Mid Range Value of PGA .35 2.09 1.38 1.29 3.80 2. from the response functions illustrated in Figure B-2.29 1.21 2.00 3.32 2.62 1.32 2.64 0.25 0.45 0.

Three local damage states (beam flange yielding. given that the scenario 10%/50-year ground shaking event is experienced.50 year ground shaking event. for 110 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . the same fragility data. given the occurrence of the scenario 10%. For this purpose. The next step on the process is to calculate the probability of being in each of several damage states. Values of interstory drift at other probabilities of exceedance or nonexceedance can be similarly evaluated from the figure. there is a 45% chance that the hypothetical buildings would experience a peak interstory drift of 2 inches or less. Since there are 10 confidence intervals with regard to evaluation of intensity (rows) and 10 confidence intervals with regard to evaluation of response (columns) each entry in columns 4 through 13 has a 1% chance of occurrence. previously presented in Figure A-10 is used. Since. Entering Figure B-3 one can read that if a 10%-50 year earthquake shaking event occurs. Figure B-3 presents this distribution. conditioned on the 10%/50 year scenario event. The data contained in columns 4 through 13 of Table B-3 can be presented more simply by doing a frequency analysis of the data and representing it in the form of a cumulative distribution function that indicates the conditional probability of nonexceedance of drift responses at different levels. given the structural response distribution shown in Figure B-3. Conversely. one can read that there is a 55% chance that the drift experienced in such an event will be larger than 2 inches. beam flange buckling and beam flange fracture) are considered. assuming a lognormal distribution for drift response.the hypothetical structure. Figure B-3 Cumulative probability distribution for interstory drift response.

4 0. by assuming that a typical story has a height of 12 feet (144 inches).8 0. 1 Probability of Damage State Initiation 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Interstory Drift .9 0.this example.3 0. Fragilities for these damage states were previously presented in Figure A-11. presents this same data with the units of interstory drift converted from percent of story height to inches. As with the local fragilities. Probability of Damage State Initiation 1 0.5 0. a story height of 144 inches has been assumed.4 0.Inches Yielding Buckling Fracturing Figure B-4 Fragilities for local damage to steel moment frame connection assemblies Four global damage states (1% permanent drift.6 0. Figure B-4 presents this converted fragility data.6 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Peak Interstory Drift .Inches 1% Drift 2% Drift 3% Drift Collapse Figure B-5 Fragilities for global damage to steel moment frame building FEMA 445 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment 111 . Figure B-5. the data in Figure A-10 has been converted to these units. structural response is parameterized by interstory drift in inches.8 0.2 0. 3% permanent drift and collapse) are also considered.7 0. 2% permanent drift.

0014 0.0033 0.5-5 5-5.03 0.. the first column indicates the increments of response drift.005 0.00 1.00 1.25 5.005 0.0% Col 8 Conditional Probability of Fracturing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1.5 .0028 0.0041 0.439 0.359 0.00 1.036 0.25 0.5-2 2-2.e.70% Interstory Drift Mid Value Probability Conditional Response Range Interstory Drift of Probability of ( in.01 0.0007 0.25 3.03 0.75 4.0005 0.656 Col 9 Incremental Probability of Fracturing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.048 0.058 0.00 Total Probability of Damage State Initiation Total Probability of Damage State Occurrence For a given damage state (e.08 0.5-3 3-3. yielding.027 2..005 0.01 0.00 1.75 3.5 8.00 1.25 4.03 0.00 1.3% Col 6 Conditional Probability of Buckling 0 0 0 0. i.25 8.00 1.279 0.0001 0.020 0.0026 0.005 0 0 0. Table B-4 illustrates this calculation of the probability of each of the three local damage states.) ( in. This is calculated as the difference of the probability of nonexceedance of the interstory drift at the 112 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 .0001 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.5 5.029 0.010 0.01 0.517 0.99 1.41 0.97 1.) Occurrence Yielding 0-.03 0.020 0.00 1.001 0.18 0.18 0.0017 0.5-7 7-7.00 1.00 1.16 0. beam flange buckling) the probability of being damaged to this damage state is evaluated as the conditional probability of the damage state (beam flange buckling) given a level of response times the probability of the response occurring.08 0.5-9 9-9. In Table B-4.75 5.08 0.0036 0.017 0.75 9.023 0.045 0.00 1.01 0.00 1 1 1 Col 7 Incremental Probability of Buckling 0 0 0 0.0026 0.5-1 1-1.5 7.08 0.11 0.g.5-6 6-6.02 0.5 6. buckling and fracture.00 1.75 2.19 0.01 0.740 42.00 1.0033 0.75 0 0.006 0.02 0.00 1.25 2.01 0.04 0.010 0.0003 0. The second column is the midrange value for each increment.75 6.25 9.5 2.5-4 4-4.01 0.01 0.5 3.010 0. The third range is the probability of occurrence of drift response within the increment. over which the integration is being performed.16 0.590 0.087 0.75 8.97 0.02 0.5 1.009 0.00 1.01 0.75 1.25 1.5 9.001 0.005 0.5-8 8-8.030 0.5-10 0.11 0.5 4.04 0.01 0.317 29.005 0.11 0.205 0.73 0.25 7.25 6.140 0.00 1. integrated over all possible levels of response.00 1.Table B-4 Calculation of Probability of Each Local Damage State Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Incremental Probability of Yielding 0 0 0.75 7.00 1.00 1.005 0.02 0.00 1.003 0.010 0.91 0.

In this table. The chance that there would be no damage at all to any particular joint is estimated as 100% minus the sum of the probabilities for each of these damage states. The second of the two columns is the incremental contribution to the total probability that any given connection in the structure will be damaged to the given state (or more severe state). the first of the two columns represents the conditional probability that damage of the level indicated by this state or a more severe state will occur. calculated as the product of the conditional probability that the damage state will occur at the response level (e.g. 2% for 3% permanent drift and 1% for collapse. of varying levels of permanent interstory drift and collapse. given the scenario event is calculated. The probability of no significant global damage is calculated as 100% minus the sum of the probabilities for each of these states. or 26%.upper end of the increment. also obtained from Figure B-3. FEMA 445 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment 113 . This is evaluated from the data presented in Figure B-4. and the probability of nonexceedance at the lower end of the increment. At the bottom of each of the columns. given the drift response of the amount represented in column 2. Table B-5 illustrates a similar calculation for the global damage states. or 67%. Columns 4 and 5 are the integration for the “yielding” state. as a function of response. The last row shows the total probability that any connection in the structure will be damaged to the given level if the scenario 10%/50 year event is experienced. but not fracturing and a 3% chance that it will initiate beam flange fracture. columns 6 and 7 for the “buckling” state.. and columns 8 and 9 for the “fracturing” state. For each of these states. Thus. given the scenario event. and 3% permanent interstory drift and story collapse are shown. a 29% chance that it will initiate beam flange buckling. 2%. column 4 for yielding) and the probability that the response level itself will be experienced (column 3). obtained from Figure B-3. calculated as the difference between the total probability that the connection is damaged to a given or more severe level and the total probability that it is damaged to the next higher level. there is a 42% chance that any particular beam-column joint in the structure will initiate yielding but not buckling. are taken from the data shown in Figure B-5. as described above for the local damage states. for this example. damage states consisting of 1%. 6% for 2% permanent drift. The conditional probability of each of these states initiating. Total probabilities of each of these damage states. the total probability that any connection in the structure will be damaged to the given or more severe damage level is calculated as the sum of the incremental contributions in the column above. Total probabilities calculated are 24% for 1% permanent drift.

91 0. for each of the three connection damage states: yielding.002 0.25 3. The third column gives the mid-range cost for the given 114 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 .5 1.5 6.75 3.065 0.19 0. Drift 3% Perm.50 0.01 0.085 0.013 0.002 0.25 7.75 4.11 0.003 0.92 0.01 0. In Table B-6.001 0.00 1.003 0.Table B-5 Col 1 Respons e Range (in) 0-.96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.75 2.005 0.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 0.005 0.009 0.027 1.02 0. given that the connection is damaged to the specified state.5-6 6-6. flange buckling and flange fracturing.003 0.38 0.25 1.010 0.09 0.003 0.008 0.00 1.005 0.052 0.330 24.00 1.75 7.010 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.188 0.01 0.36 0.001 0.21 0.16 0.133 0.007 0.08 0.004 0.000 0. Figure B-6 indicates the probability of incurring various levels of repair cost for a damaged connection assembly.022 0. Drift 2% Perm.5-4 4-4.5-10 Calculation of Probability of Each Global Damage State.05 0.25 4.088 6.004 0.16 0.001 0.01 0. as a function of the damage state experienced.033 0.81 0.003 0.08 0.59 0.2% 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.003 0. Drift of Collapse of Collapse 0 0.005 0.03 0.032 0.84 0.18 0.048 0.048 0.159 0.08 0.005 0 0 0 0.5-2 2-2.78 0.94 0. it is necessary to know the probable losses.009 0.005 0.01 0.5 2.44 0.03 0.010 0.26 0.61 0.25 9.75 8. the probability that this repair cost would be experienced.004 0. Table B-6 illustrates the calculation of probable repair cost per beam-column connection.28 0.005 0.5-5 5-5. Drift 3% Perm.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5-3 3-3.1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1.001 0.25 2.5 . given that a damage state is experienced.14 0.001 0.88 0.21 0.014 0.5-7 7-7.03 0.5-9 9-9.010 0.5 9.001 0.04 0. the first two columns indicate the upper and lower bounds for the incremental repair costs over which the integration is performed.66 0.020 0.9% Total Probability of Damage State Initiation Total Probability of Damage State Occurrence Next.75 Probability Conditional Incremental Conditional Incremental Conditional Incremental Conditional Incremental of Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability Probability Occurrence 1% Perm.70 0.99 1.00 1.004 0.029 0.75 1.001 0.004 0.95 0.5-8 8-8.25 6.001 0.50 Year Event Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Col 10 Col 11 Col 2 Mid Value (in) 0.001 0.25 0.02 0.5 8.001 0.5-1 1-1.006 0.75 6.05 0. Drift 1% Perm.5 3.25 5.5 4.033 0.010 0.005 0.002 0.5 5.02 0.98 0. This same data was previously presented as Figure A-13.25 8.005 0.00 1. Drift 2% Perm.75 9.108 0.52 0.5 7. This is accomplished by integrating over all possible individual connection repair costs.020 0.218 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0. Given the 10% .75 5.008 0.00 1.005 0.00 0 0 0 0.027 0.008 0.

0272 0.13 $366.0404 0.000 $5.0241 0.1416 0.8584 0.0387 0.000 $25. of NonExc.875 $2.78 $161.54 $3.00 $0 $0 $0 $215.397.000 $8.28 $189.8584 0.370.9893 0.02 $0.750 $3.0521 0.0000 0.8223 0.0000 Col 8 Buckling Prob.50 $31.56 $269.0070 0.Probability of Nonexceedance 1 0.000 $950.0000 1.0506 0.26 $284.0000 1.02 $0.000.750 $10.3868 0.0000 Col 5 Yielding Prob.2706 0.0229 0.0900 0.0789 0.125.7982 0.0591 0.000 $4.0000 0.000 $2.9997 0.0000 0.4 0.50 $58.0000 0.0000 1.49 $47.1030 0.000 $1.0294 0.1777 0.0164 0.12 Col 10 Prob.875 $3.000 FEMA 445 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment 115 .0143 0.74 $306.0026 0.9462 0.68 $811.000 $3.0000 1.86 $0.68 $6.000 $850.0323 0.0001 0.500 $875.6780 0.5887 0.000 $9.500 $17.0000 0.750 $2.31 $57.6230 0.3220 0.1290 0.000 $7.0318 0.0000 1.3868 0.0000 1.0026 0.875 $9.000 $10.06 $35.0000 0.9998 0.20 $252. 0.0000 0.000 $20.7680 0.0143 0.750 $7.000 $75 $125 $250 $500 $750 $1.0000 0.09 $2.70 $2.1065 0.875 $12.0000 0.8420 0.0000 1.000 $15.0323 0.92 $174.0163 0.0395 0.37 $33.5000 0.6524 0.0070 0.52 Repair Cost/Connection $$75 $125 $250 $500 $750 $1.3667 0.0000 Col 12 Incremental Probable Loss $0.67 $261.0484 0.0387 0.14 $0.33 $0.875 $6.0000 0.48 $35.750 $5.22 $27.000 $20. Of Occurrence 0.9998 Col 11 Fracturing Prob.0197 0.000 $925.0000 Col 9 Incremental Probable Loss $0.5000 0.38 $227.10 $0.18 $277.000 $975. of Occurrence 0.2 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Yielding Buckling Fracture Repair Cost / Connection Figure B-6 Probability of Experiencing Various Repair Costs as Function of Connection Assembly Damage State Calculation of Probable Repair Cost.875 $5.0360 0.1780 0.5883 0.01 $0.88 $9.40 $2.0715 0.24 $333.000 $900.28 $207.0000 1.83 $241.61 $15.9104 0.0000 1.000 $900.0741 0.9997 0. 0.9999 1.22 $287.1260 0.6780 0.88 $276.25 $19.0543 0.0093 0.5883 0.33 $288.5484 0.04 $0.000 $15.0002 0.0624 0.0000 0.500 $22.57 $1.000 $38 $100 $188 $375 $625 $875 $1.73 Col 7 Prob.2320 0.0000 1.000 $6.7680 0.23 $3.0113 0.7294 0. of Occurrence 0.6065 0.0159 0.0514 0.750 $4.0000 0.875 $7.9986 0.00 $0.60 $3. of NonExc.000 $950. Given that a Connection Damage State is Experienced Col 2 High Table B-6 Col 1 Low Col 3 Mid-pt Col 4 Prob.0010 0.0000 1.9539 1.89 $250.0654 0.30 $276.4409 0.0961 0.6 0. of NonExc.0000 1.2566 0.57 $949.57 $49.0302 0.0000 0.0342 0. 0.07 $0.81 $25.875 $4.99 $14.83 $43.0000 Col 6 Incremental Probable Loss $14.49 $650.9780 0.0828 0.875 $8.8 0.0000 0.0406 0.750 $9.97 $0.23 $9.8223 0.0000 1.9376 0.89 $17.750 $8.65 $476.750 $6.8202 0.0949 0.0256 0.

respectively. The probable cost of repair for these states is respectively found to be $46/sq foot of story space for 1% permanent drift. For the purposes of this calculation it has arbitrarily been assumed that the median cost for repair of damage for each of these states is respectively $37.50 per square foot. 50% for 2% and 3% drift and 30% for the collapse state. buckling and fracturing states. 8 and 11 indicate the probability of damage costing within each range. Columns 5. $53/sq foot of story space for 2% story drift. it has been assumed that the probability of experiencing given levels of local damage is uncoupled from the probability of experiencing particular levels of global damage and that the cost associated with repair of global damage and that related to repair of local damage are also uncoupled. Table B-7 performs a similar integration to determine the probable costs associated with repair of global damage in the building. The total expected cost of repairing damage for the category is calculated as the sum of the incremental costs for each of the ranges and is approximately $215 per yielded connection. 7 and 10 indicate the probability of experiencing damage less severe than the high end of each incremental range for the yield. calculated as the mid-range repair cost for each range factored by the probability of the cost being within the range.increment. In actuality. calculated as the difference between the probability of damage less severe than the high end of that range and the high end of the next lower range. Coefficients of variation for these repair costs have respectively been assumed as 40% for 1% drift. $56 per square foot and $200 per square foot. respectively.000 per fractured connection. $6. Columns 4. Columns 6.400 per buckled connection and $15. 2% permanent drift. Development of effective and practical methods of accounting for these joint probabilities is needed and will be conducted as part of the Phase 1 FEMA 445 program. 3% permanent drift and collapse. neither of these assumptions is correct and rather than using independent probabilities for these damage states. 116 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 . joint probability distributions should be used. if the building is damaged to each of the global damage states: 1% permanent drift. It should be noted that in this example. respectively. 9 and 12 indicate the incremental contribution to the total probable repair cost from the various ranges. $64/square foot of story space for 3% story drift and $210/square foot of building space for the collapse state. $47 per square foot.

099 0.003 0.000 0. of Occurrence 0.993 0.09 $38.03 $12.044 0.006 0.02 $0.979 0.00 $0.58 $6.003 0.00 $0.061 0.142 0.689 0.551 0.013 0.117 0.10 $0.999 1.971 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.015 0.97 $1.060 0.00 $0.000 0.003 0.009 0.73 $3.043 0.76 $9.03 $0.031 0.94 $0.03 $0.33 $0.58 $0.057 0.000 1.363 0.23 $0.018 0.96 $3.00 $0.116 0.000 1.004 0.84 $13.16 $3.000 1. Prob.034 0.069 0.00 $53.288 0.000 1.78 $5.63 Repair Cost/Square Feet Low High MidRange 2% Permanent Drift Prob.42 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 $120 $130 $140 $150 $160 $170 $180 $190 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 $550 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100 $120 $130 $140 $150 $160 $170 $180 $190 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 $550 $600 $5 $15 $25 $35 $45 $55 $65 $75 $85 $95 $110 $125 $135 $145 $155 $165 $175 $185 $195 $225 $275 $325 $375 $425 $475 $525 $575 0.01 $0.000 0.186 0. of Occurrence 0.001 0.144 0.40 $0.010 0.00 $6.00 $40.000 0.000 1.24 $1.00 $0.912 0.000 0.00 $0.970 0.000 0.000 1.030 0.998 1.990 0.00 $0.000 1.16 3% Permanent Drift Prob. of NonExc.94 $2.759 0. or approximately $31/ sq ft.000 1.169 0.69 $4.001 0.28 $0.143 0.00 $0.000 0.000 0. of Occurrence 0.26 $0.000 0.085 0.987 0.01 $0.000 0. Prob.069 0.34 $0.90 $5.14 $210.999 1.880 0.800.14 $0.000 Incremental Probable Loss $0.068 0.975 0.00 $63.000 0.09 $0.07 $0.000 0.000 0.00 $0. the probability that the damage state is experienced and the probable (expected) loss given that the state is experienced.86 $0.000 1.998 0. This is performed by summing over all damage states.000 0.999 1.61 $2.042 0.01 $0.007 0.00 $0.95 $7.61 $0.000 1.005 0.000 1.104 0.007 0.63 $7.000 0.79 $0. Collapse Prob.00 $0.65 $3.00 $0.986 0.000 0.000 0.38 $3.997 0.076 0.24 $61.060 0.000 1.000 1.29 $2.000 0.81 $12.993 0.000 0.000 1.73 $1.06 $0.000 0.067 0.007 0.25 $10.904 0.001 0.000 1.000 0.031 0.000 1. Total expected cost to repair the structure following the scenario event is found to be approximately $1.000.019 0.000 0.83 $1.000 0.189 0.066 0.772 0. Table B-8 illustrates this calculation.669 0.000 0.36 $0.000 1.16 $7.789 0.997 0.021 0.019 0.159 0.995 0.95 $2.00 $0.000 0.000 1.02 $7.00 $0.564 0. of NonExc.86 $5.140 0.46 $0.035 0.009 0. given that the scenario event is experienced.000 0.Table B-7 Calculation of Probable Repair Costs for Global Damage 1% Permanent Drift Prob.000 0.000 0.59 $7.551 0.857 0.74 $2.63 $0.13 $5.000 Incremental Probable Loss $0.407 0.000 The final step is to compute the expected losses.48 $9.000 1.986 0.230 0.002 0.000 0.090 0.00 $0.000 0. FEMA 445 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment 117 .65 $6.875 0.000 1.47 $5.000 0.376 0. of NonExc.176 0.00 $0.000 1.000 Incremental Probable Loss $0.25 $0.19 $0.004 0.33 $1.000 1.228 0.27 $1.069 0.00 $0.000 1.001 0.47 $0.500 0.935 0.63 $7.68 $0.000 0.953 0.001 0.002 0.01 $0.000 1.118 0.007 0.001 0.272 0.000 1. of NonExc.001 0.000 0.276 0.005 0.02 $0.049 0.994 0. of Occurrence 0.82 Prob.990 0.047 0.826 0.993 0.052 0.935 0.000 1.00 $0.000 0.56 $18.000 0.764 0.200 0.03 $0.000 0.000 0.65 $9.969 0.058 0.000 1.000 0.001 0.17 $0.000 1.63 $6.044 0.91 $7. Prob.00 $0.01 $0.001 0.432 0.000 Incremental Probable Loss $0.001 0.294 0.000 0.00 $0.996 0.000 0.990 0.058 0.966 0.000 0.62 $3.000 0.941 0.00 $0.11 $0.01 $0.08 $0.003 0.138 0.982 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.00 $0.55 $6.248 0.000 0.

629.400.16 $415.400.571.90 $689.246. fragility and loss functions.31 Col 6 Total Expected Cost $9.67 Damage State Yielding Buckling Fracture 1% drift 2% drift 3% drift Collapse Aggregate of all damage states: The actual losses in any actual occurrence of the 10%-50 year event could vary substantially from these expected values depending on the actual value of the ground motion experienced at the site. the actual damage state that the structure experiences.243 0.73 $6. the variability in the damage state given the response.81 $44.571.397. the actual response of the structure given this ground motion.844.12 $15. including the variability in the ground motion. tenants and contractors in effecting repairs. response. the integration process results in an average or mean value of the loss. that actual losses could be larger than this amount. Given 10%/50-Year Event Col 2 Probability of Occurrence 0.820.357. there is a significant probability.25 $1. considering all this potential variability.31 $1.018 0.90 $689.22 $200. Thus.629. has been explicitly considered in the hazard.423 0.43 $592. the variability in structural response.31 $194.31 $194. and the response time and efficiency of the owner. as described above.855.69 $113. 118 B: Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment FEMA 445 .52 n/a n/a n/a n/a Col 4 Expected Cost per Connection $91. the actual number of people present in the building.246.290 0. Procedures for determining performance (losses) at other levels of confidence will be developed as part of the implementation of the Phase 1 FEMA 445 Program Plan.69 $113.009 Col 3 Probable Cost per Connection $215. on the order of 40%.061 0.881.027 0. and the variability in the human factors.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a Col 5 Expected Global Cost n/a n/a n/a $592. However.Table B-8 Col 1 Calculation of Expected Repair Cost. given that the 10%/50 year event occurs. Possible variability in each of these factors.855.370.

All of these procedures require that the hazard. The following assumptions and simplifications are made. using closedform solutions. This example application is different from that presented in Appendix B and consists of the estimation of the annual average probability of earthquake-induced life loss for the hypothetical building. the 1/100 to 1/1000 interval. Epistemic is that uncertainty that occurs due a lack of knowledge on the true values of causative factors for a physical behavior. described in Appendix A.. This form of the hazard function appears as a straight line when log λ(x) is plotted vs log x (as shown in Figure C-1). epistemic FEMA 445 C: Example Application Using Closed Form Solutions 119 . moment-resisting steel frame building that was the subject of evaluation using numerical integration procedures in Appendix B is used.Appendix C Example Application of Seismic Performance Assessment Using Closed Form Solutions This Appendix illustrates the application of a closed-form solution to the performance assessment process described in Appendix A. fragility and loss functions. in simple form. which affects to some extent the prediction of performance. and εGM is a lognormally distributed random variable representing epistemic uncertainty related to the ground motion hazard. In this application. be represented by simple functional forms that permit closed-form integration. The hazard function for the building site is represented in a power form as follows: λ (x ) = k 0 x − k ε GM (C-1) where λ(x) is the annual frequency of exceedance of ground shaking equaling or exceeding intensity level x. k0 and k are numerical coefficients chosen to fit this functional form to the site hazard curve in the range of interest. response. However. Similar procedures have been developed to estimate other probable earthquake losses. The closed-form solution is based on a procedure developed by Baker and Cornell (2003). e. For example. necessarily entails some approximation. The representation of these various functions. the same three-story.g. for many applications the simplification obtained by an ability to perform a closed-form solution might compensate for any loss of accuracy in the solution.

It diverges from the natural curve at extreme values.00001 and 6. previously shown as Figure B-2.01 0. In Appendix A.01 1 0.1 median function 0. previously shown in Figure A-3. Also plotted in the figure is the explicit functional representation of the median estimate hazard curve.01 to 0. Figure C-2 is the fragility data for building collapse. such effects were simply termed uncertainty. Figure C-3. the functional form of the hazard curve represents the natural form of the hazard curve reasonably well for annual frequencies of exceedance ranging from 0. which has been fit to the natural curve by the function: ˆ ( x ) = .001 0.001. As can be seen.00001x −6 ε λ GM (C-2) where the coefficients k0 and k are respectively assigned values of 0. plotted here in log-log coordinates. 120 C: Example Application Using Closed Form Solutions FEMA 445 .25g. previously presented as one of several global damage states in Figure B-5.uncertainty in ground motion hazard may result from a less than perfect knowledge of the mean slip rates on neighboring faults or of the depth and shear wave profiles of soils beneath a site.1 1 Annual Probability of Exceedance 0. Peak Ground Acceleration -g 0. this shows a median (50% probability) value for collapse at an interstory drift of 14 inches. Figure C-1 is a plot of the median estimate of the peak ground acceleration hazard curve for the site.0001 Figure C-1 Median Hazard Curve for Site As can be seen. is a response curve for the structure and indicates that the median value of peak ground acceleration at which an interstory drift of 14 inches is achieved has a value of approximately 1.

2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Peak Interstory Drift .8 0. Level Figure C-3 Structural response curve for hypothetical building The closed form solution for the mean estimate of the annual frequency of collapse of the structure is given by the relationship: ˆ Eλ collapse = k 0ηc e −k k βUT 2 2 (C-3) where.8 1 1.C 2 + β U .Inches Figure C-2 Global fragility for hypothetical structure 14 Interstory Drift . and βUT is the total dispersion considering all sources of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty and defined by the expression: β UT = β U .4 0. Level 90% Conf. ηc is the median value of the ground shaking intensity at which collapse occurs. in this case 1.25g.6 0.2 1.4 Peak Ground Acceleration .6 0. respectively.g Median 10% Conf. R 2 + β R .Probability of Damage State Initiation 1 0.% 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. R 2 + k 2 β UGM 2 (C-4) FEMA 445 C: Example Application Using Closed Form Solutions 121 .2 0.C 2 + β R .0001 and 6. k0 and k are the coefficients previously described in the discussion of the hazard curve and have values of 0.4 0.

122 C: Example Application Using Closed Form Solutions FEMA 445 . however. The annual frequency of life loss can be taken as the product of the annual frequency of collapse. it is found that βUT has a value of 3.. C-1 above. times the conditional probability that each would be a fatality.2 35 . there is approximately one person for every 200 square feet of floor space. For this example application. This yields an expected number of fatalities per year of 6x10-4.C are respectively the epistemic and aleatory uncertainty dispersions in structure capacity.e.5 . a story collapse may not be complete. given that their story collapses. βU. the values of these variances are as given in Table C-1. aleatory uncertainty can be characterized as random variation or randomness. the mean average occupancy density of a building is on the order of one person per 800 square foot.e. and βUGM is the epistemic uncertainty in ground motion hazard. Finally. are respectively the epistemic and aleatory uncertainty dispersions in structural response.R and βR.C and βR. event to event. Aleatory uncertainty quantifies random. as previously described in Appendix A.where. during normal business hours. i. If we assume that given collapse. times the probability of life loss given that collapse occurs.3 Substituting these values into equation C-4. response function and damage functions. Earthquakes can occur at any hour of the day or night. k is the same hazard coefficient previously described. calculated above as 5x10-5 per year. variation in behavior that can not be ascribed to quantifiable parameters.5 Aleatory βR . substituting these values into equation C-2 is found that there is 5x10-5 annual frequency of collapse. These various measures of dispersion are derived during the process of developing the hazard function. buildings are occupied only about 25% of the time. respectively. times the probable number of people in the affected story at the time of collapse. we find that the mean expected number of fatalities given a collapse is the probability of collapse. the dispersion of the random variable defined as εGM in Eq.. In a typical office building. Frame buildings of this type would typically collapse in a story type mechanism that involves a single story. Therefore.R. there is a 50% chance that any person in the effected story would be a fatality and that persons on other floors would not be expected to suffer fatal injuries. i. Further. βU. Table C-1 Epistemic and Aleatory Uncertainty for Example Building Quantity Interstory Dift Capacity Interstory Drift Response Ground Motion Frequency Epistemic βU . which is 25.

ARA. California. 2003. ATC. prepared by the Applied Technology Council. FEMA 273 Report. prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 310 Report. and (2) FEMA publications listed in order of report number. prepared for the California Seismic Safety Commission by the Applied Technology Council. D. ATC. 1998. prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety Council. American Society of Civil Engineers. 1985. ATC-13 Report. Washington. Washington. D. Washington. Progressive Collapse Guidelines. Applied Technology Council. prepared by Applied Research Associates for the General Services Administration. 1997a. Redwood City. Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings. 1996.C. ASCE. ATC. Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California. 2002. Washington.C.References This reference list is divided into two groups: (1) all publications cited in order of authors and year published. 2000. for the Building Seismic Safety Council. a Prestandard.C. published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ATC-40 Report.C. ASCE-31. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA 356 Report. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Virginia. D. ATC.C. 1997b. Standard No. Reston. ASCE. D. prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 445 References 123 . published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 274 Report. Standard Methodology for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. ASCE. D. Washington. California. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Redwood City.

for the California Seismic Safety Commission. Oakland. California.C. 1999. Action Plan for Performance-based Seismic Design. Washington. 1996. prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. California. 2003.. Uncertainty Specification and Propagation for Loss Estimation Using FOSM Methods. Baker. Washington. EERI. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures. Virginia. prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2006. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings – An Action Plan for Future Studies. FEMA 283 Report. EERI. HAZUS.C.C. Stanford University. prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. International Code Council. prepared for the National Science Foundation by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. EQE. 2003. NIBS. International Building Code. 2005. 2002.A. D. BSSC. Washington. prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency by the National Institute of Building Sciences. 2000. J. D. D. Falls Church. 1997. International Performance Code. Case Studies: An Assessment of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. D. Inc. FEMA 343 Report. Whittier. and Cornell. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulation of Buildings and Other Structures. Sacramento. D. D.C. 124 References FEMA 445 .ATC. 1999.C. California. Department of Civil Engineering. Washington. Securing Society against Catastrophic Earthquake Losses. Earthquake Risk Management: Toolkit for Decision-Makers. FEMA 349 Report.C. International Code Council.W. ICC.. FEMA 440 Report. C. Washington. Washington. prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Center for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ICC. BSSC. FEMA 450 Report. prepared by EQE International. Multihazard Loss Estimating Methodology. 2001. EERC. California.

D. SAC. Massachusetts. Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings.C. Y. 2004. the Applied Technology Council.C. 1985.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Framingham. for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. prepared by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control Manufacturer’s Association for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. the Applied Technology Council. Reston.H-S. Washington..J. 722-739. 2000a. the Applied Technology Council. 2000b.NFPA. Sacramento. prepared by the SAC Joint Venture. D. K.. 2003. a partnership of the Structural Engineers Association of California. for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. prepared by the SAC Joint Venture. Vision 2000: Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. SAC. prepared by the SAC Joint Venture.” Proceedings of the International Workshop on PerformanceBased Seismic Design. and Ang. FEMA 412 Report. California. “Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. NFPA-5000 Report. SEAOC.C. Bled. FEMA 445 References 125 . and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. FEMA 350 Report. American Society of Civil Engineers. California. A. Washington. D. Structural Engineers Association of California. VISCMA. Park. Building and Construction Safety Code. 2000c.A. “Simplified PBEE to estimate economic seismic risk of buildings. Richmond. Recommended Post-earthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. pp. No. FEMA 351 Report. and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. Installing Seismic Restraints for Mechanical Equipment. SAC. 1995. a partnership of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 2002. Slovenia. 4. Porter. D.C. Virginia. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel MomentFrame Buildings. Washington. Vol. National Fire Protection Association. Washington. FEMA 352 Report. 111. a partnership of the Structural Engineers Association of California.

Washington. Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment. 126 References FEMA 445 . FEMA 416 Report. prepared by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control Manufacturer’s Association for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.C. 2004b. FEMA 413 Report. VISCMA.VISCMA. prepared by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control Manufacturer’s Association for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2004a. D. D. Washington. Installing Seismic Restraints for Piping and Ducts.C.

1998. prepared by the Applied Technology Council.FEMA Publications FEMA 273. 1996. FEMA 343 Report. Washington. Washington. Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings.C. 1999. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. D. Washington. published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. D. for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.C. D.C. for the Building Seismic Safety Council. 2000. Case Studies: An Assessment of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. a Prestandard.C. FEMA 351. prepared by the SAC Joint Venture. prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. a partnership of the Structural Engineers Association of California. D. and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. Washington. Washington. FEMA 343. FEMA 310. 2000. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. FEMA 349. prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA 350. D. 1997. prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2000. D. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Buildings – An Action Plan for Future Studies. Action Plan for Performance-based Seismic Design.C.C. FEMA 445 References 127 . the Applied Technology Council.C. prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety Council. prepared by the Earthquake Engineering Research Center for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. the Applied Technology Council. D. a partnership of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 1997. D.C. Washington. FEMA 283. Washington. prepared by the SAC Joint Venture. Washington. FEMA 274. published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Washington.C. D. 128 References FEMA 445 .FEMA 352. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Installing Seismic Restraints for Piping and Ducts. FEMA 450. for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2004. 2003. D. FEMA 416. the Applied Technology Council. D. Washington. FEMA 440. 2000. a partnership of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Washington. Washington. D.C. and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. prepared by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control Manufacturer’s Association for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2000. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulation of Buildings and Other Structures. prepared by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control Manufacturer’s Association for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 356. FEMA 412. 2004. Installing Seismic Restraints for Mechanical Equipment. Washington. Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment. D. prepared by the SAC Joint Venture. D. prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. D.C. 2005. Washington. Improvement of Inelastic Analysis Procedures. prepared by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control Manufacturer’s Association for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.C. Washington. Recommended Post-earthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings.C. 2002.C.C. FEMA 413.

Lab 205 N. Moehle University of California at Berkeley 3444 Echo Springs Road Lafayette. Mathews Urbana. California 94595 Project Management Committee (PMC) Christopher Rojahn (Chair) Ronald Hamburger (Co-Chair) Jon A. Room 416 Washington. California 90602 *Ex-officio **ATC Board Representative Steering Committee William T. 20472 Robert D. Heintz* Applied Technology Council 201 Redwood Shores Parkway. Monitor) Federal Emergency Management Agency 2926 Saklan Indian Drive Walnut Creek. California 94549 Maryann T. Holmes (Chair) Rutherford & Chekene 427 Thirteenth Street Oakland.Project Participants Project Management Christopher Rojahn (Project Executive Director) Applied Technology Council 201 Redwood Shores Parkway. Washington 98075 Jack P. California 94612 Dan Abrams Mid-America Earthquake Center University of Illinois 1245 Newmark Civil Engr. Hamburger (Project Technical Director) Simpson Gumpertz & Heger The Landmark @ One Market. California 94530 Jon Traw Traw Associates Consulting 14435 Eastridge Drive Whittier. SW. Suite 100 El Cerrito. California 94105 FEMA Oversight Mike Mahoney (Project Officer) Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street.C. D. Suite 240 Redwood City. California 94065 Ronald O. Suite 600 San Francisco. Phipps** ESTRUCTURE 8331 Kent Court. Illinois 61801 FEMA 445 Project Participants 129 . California 94065 Peter May (University of Washington) 21817 SE 20th Street Sammamish . Hanson (Tech. Suite 240 Redwood City.

of Civil & Environmental Engineering 240 Terman Engineering Center Stanford. T. Inc.S. Inc. California 90405 Mohammed Ettouney Weidlinger Associates. 4th Fl. Room 420 Sacramento. Washington 98101 Andrew T.C. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road. California 94305-4020 Andre Filiatrault MCEER. Suite 205 Berkeley. D. 375 Hudson Street New York. NW Washington. MS977 Menlo Park. California 95814 Barry Goodno Georgia Institute of Technology School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Atlanta. Architect 1320 Prudential Drive. Merovich A. Borcherdt U. Suite 313 New York. 1950 Addison Street. Whittaker (Leader) University at Buffalo Dept. Beck Beck Creative Strategies LLC 531 Main Street. No 101 Dallas. New York 10044 Randall Berdine Fannie Mae 3900 Wisconsin Avenue.. Building Department 402 Lee Street NE. University at Buffalo 105 Red Jacket Quadrangle Buffalo. Rhode Island 02919 James W. Sealy.Deborah B. Texas 75235-4117 Structural Performance Products Team Andrew S. New York 14261-0025 Terry Dooley Morley Builders 2901 28th Street. New York 14261-0025 John Hopper Magnesson Klemencic Associates 1301 Fifth Avenue. Georgia 30332 William J. Alabama 35601 Michel Bruneau MCEER. Suite 3200 Seattle. California 94025 Jimmy Brothers City of Decatur. Suite 100 Santa Monica.. City Hall Tower Decatur. New York 10014 John Gillengerten Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 1600 9th St. 20016-2892 Roger D. Petak University of Southern California School of Policy Planning and Development Lewis Hall 214 650 Childs Way Los Angeles. California 90089 Randy Schreitmueller FM Global 1301 Atwood Avenue Johnston. University of Buffalo 105 Red Jacket Quadrangle Buffalo. California 94704 130 Project Participants FEMA 445 . of Civil Engineering 230 Ketter Hall Buffalo. New York 14260 Gregory Deierlein Stanford University Dept. Merovich & Associates.

California 94303-4311 Mr. 4th Floor Los Angeles. Kennedy RPK Structural Mechanics Consulting. Suite 180 Westborough. California 93561 Eduardo Miranda Stanford University Civil & Environmental Engineering Terman Room 293 Stanford. Michigan Ave. Comartin (Leader) Comartin Engineers 7683 Andrea Avenue Stockton. Suite C Tehachapi. California 91104 Risk Management Products Team Craig D. Bachman (Leader) Consulting Structural Engineer 880 Dartmouth Street San Francisco. 28625 Mountain Meadow Road Escondido. California 94305-3707 Keith Porter Consulting Engineer 769 N. California 92026 Gary McGavin McGavin Architecture 20608 South Street. University of Buffalo 105 Red Jacket Quadrangle Buffalo. California 94028 Gee Heckscher Architecture Resources Group Pier 9. California 94134 David Bonowitz Office of Court Construction and Management Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco. Meacham (Assoc. Flower Street. 1212 S. Consulting Engineers 1121 San Antonio Road. Massachusetts 01581 Farzad Naeim John A. Seneca. Allin Cornell Stanford University 110 Coquito Way Portola Valley. California 94111 Charles Kircher Kircher & Associates. Martin & Associates. Caldwell Square D Company 1990 Sandifer Blvd. Inc. Leader) Arup 1500 West Park Drive. New York 14261-0025 Robert P. Pasadena. CA 90015 FEMA 445 Project Participants 131 . South Carolina 29687 Andre Filiatrault MCEER. The Embarcadero San Francisco. California 94102 Philip J. California 95207-1705 C. Gary McGavin McGavin Architecture 447 LaVerne Street Redlands. Suite D-202 Palo Alto. CA 92373 Brian J.Nonstructural Performance Products Team Robert E. Inc.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful